<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
-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="id
3022126"></a><p>
+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="id
2683788"></a><p>
<span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
</p><p>
Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensiert med en
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
-<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
-visjonærer</span>”</span>. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania,
+<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
+visjonærer</span>»</span>. 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.
</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>
The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
</p><p>
Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontpublisher"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
-The Penguin Press, New York
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontbookinfo"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
-Fri Kultur
-</p><p>
-Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
-og kontrollere kreativiteten
-</p><p>
-Lawrence Lessig
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3011490"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2636508"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
Til Eric Eldred — hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
hvem saken fortsetter.
-</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—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="#id3084892">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id3000220"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
+</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: Fantasifoster</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—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="#id2723292">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2636374"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street
New York, New York
</p><p>
Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig. Alle rettigheter reservert.
</p><p>
-Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
-Perpetuity,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
+Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
+Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with
permission.
</p><p>
modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken — at
-programvaren, eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">koden</span>”</span>, fungerte som en slags lov —
+programvaren, eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">koden</span>»</span>, fungerte som en slags lov —
og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
problemer som finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">påvirke</span>”</span> oss mer.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">påvirke</span>»</span> oss mer.
</p><p>
Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 — jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
selv etter at modemet er slått av. Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
-som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">folk som
-er ikke pålogget.</span>”</span> Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
+som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk som
+er ikke pålogget.</span>»</span> Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
internettets effekt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
999554"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
647559"></a><p>
Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
</p><p>
Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på. Som jeg vil forklare i
-sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri
-kultur</span>”</span>—ikke <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri</span>”</span> som i <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri bar</span>”</span>
+sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
+kultur</span>»</span>—ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri bar</span>»</span>
(for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
-programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2999600" href="#ftn.id2999600" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
-<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
-marked</span>”</span>, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">frihandel</span>”</span>, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>”</span>,
-<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
+programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2635966" href="#ftn.id2635966" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
+<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
+marked</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frihandel</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>»</span>,
+<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
og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere. Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele
immaterielle rettigheter. Men det gjør den indirekte ved å begrense
rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å garantere at neste generasjon
skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri som mulig</em></span> fra
kontroll fra fortiden. En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis. Det motsatte av
-fri kultur er <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>”</span>—en kultur der skapere
+fri kultur er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>»</span>—en kultur der skapere
kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
fortiden.
</p><p>
Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den. Ikke
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vi</span>”</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">dere</span>”</span> på høyresiden,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi</span>»</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dere</span>»</span> på høyresiden,
men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi
deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider
av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
999680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
636047"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2636053"></a><p>
Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen. Mens William
-Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
+Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
-konservative Ted Stevens</span>”</span>, formulerte han kanskje det enkleste
+konservative Ted Stevens</span>»</span>, formulerte han kanskje det enkleste
uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han:
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2999709"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2636082"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut? Ikke for meg. Denne konsentrasjonen av
makt—politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt—bør være
bannlyst av konservative. Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
-og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2999733" href="#ftn.id2999733" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2636106" href="#ftn.id2636106" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven. Loven er i endring, og
endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
bekymre deg—Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
-om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
-og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
-og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
-nytt, spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
+om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Inspirasjonen</strong></span> til tittelen og mye av
+argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman og Free
+Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på nytt,
+spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden. Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
-dette verket <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kun</span>”</span> er et avledet verk.
+dette verket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kun</span>»</span> er et avledet verk.
</p><p>
Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk. Arbeidet til en advokat
frykter om vår kultur i dag. Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
denne boken er skrevet.
</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>
-David Pogue, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New
+David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2999600" href="#id2999600" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2635966" href="#id2635966" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
(Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2999733" href="#id2999733" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
-Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="id2999744"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
-17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
-hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
-enn luft kunne fly. Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
-forstått. Nesten umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye
-teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
-begynte å bygge videre på den.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2636106" href="#id2636106" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
+Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="id2636117"></a>
+</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="id2692396"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Den 17. desember</strong></span> 1903, på en vindfylt
+strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under hundre sekunder, demonstrerte
+Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre enn luft kunne fly.
+Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment forstått. Nesten
+umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye teknologien som
+muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere begynte å bygge
+videre på den.
</p><p>
Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
-bakken, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3056520" href="#ftn.id3056520" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
+bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2692436" href="#ftn.id2692436" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
manns eiendom?
Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom? Har jeg mulighet til å
inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines? Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3056540"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056565"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2692456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692481"></a><p>
I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
-strakk seg <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>”</span> så hadde regjeringen
+strakk seg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>»</span> så hadde regjeringen
trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
dette.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3056591"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056597"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2692507"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692513"></a><p>
Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
-grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ta</span>”</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
-Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
-rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>”</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
+grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
+Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
+rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>»</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner. I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
strid med sunn fornuft. Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
-eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id3056649" href="#ftn.id3056649" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2692565" href="#ftn.id2692565" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer. Ikke ofte like brått eller
utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer. Det var ikke
stilen til Douglas å utbrodere. Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
-linje: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>”</span>. Men uansett om
+linje: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>. Men uansett om
det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
aktuelle teknologiene. Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den. Idéer som
var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3056734"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056741"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2692650"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692657"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692664"></a><p>
Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
av endringen. Causbyene var bare bønder. Og selv om det uten tvil var
mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden. Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
-i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">det
-synes rimelig</span>”</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
+i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
+synes rimelig</span>»</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville. De kunne ringe sine
representanter eller til og med saksøke. Men når alt kom til alt, ville
-kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>”</span> for alle andre—makten
-til <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>”</span>—ville vinne frem. Deres
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>”</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
+kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>»</span> for alle andre—makten
+til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span>—ville vinne frem. Deres
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>»</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
-</p><p>
-Edwin Howard Armstrong er en av USAs glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp
-på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham
-Bell. Alle hans bidrag på området radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den
-viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i de første femti årene av radio. Han
-var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday, som var bokbinderlærling da han
-oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831. Men han hadde like god intuisjon om
-hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre anledninger, fant Armstrong opp
-svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3056804"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056814"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056820"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2692714"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692725"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692735"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692766"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2692773"></a><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> er en av USAs
+glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
+Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham Bell. Alle hans bidrag på området
+radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i
+de første femti årene av radio. Han var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday,
+som var bokbinderlærling da han oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831. Men
+han hadde like god intuisjon om hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre
+anledninger, fant Armstrong opp svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår
+forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
+
</p><p>
Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde
kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna. Radioen ble helt
stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
-opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
-som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>”</span>
+opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
+som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
utført. … Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
-radio-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3056898" href="#ftn.id3056898" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
+radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2692873" href="#ftn.id2692873" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
-støy fra <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radio.</span>”</span>. Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
-oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id3056942"></a>
+støy fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>. Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
+oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2692917"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon —
-starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id3056832" href="#ftn.id3056832" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2692810" href="#ftn.id2692810" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessing"></a><p>
Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3056987"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2692977"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger … en komplett endring i
maktforholdene rundt radio … og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
-makt.<sup>[<a name="id3057014" href="#ftn.id3057014" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
+makt.<sup>[<a name="id2693004" href="#ftn.id2693004" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
-var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id3057029" href="#ftn.id3057029" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3057069"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2693018" href="#ftn.id2693018" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2693062"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2693070"></a><p>
For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning. Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2635509"></a><p>
Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger. Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
prosess. RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
effekten av en teknologisk endring.
</p><p>
-Det er ingen enkeltoppfinner av Internet. Ei heller er det en god dato som
-kan brukes til å markere når det ble født. Likevel har internettet i løpet
-av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv. I følge the Pew
-Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
-tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år
-tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2999006" href="#ftn.id2999006" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
-problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Det er ingen</strong></span> enkeltoppfinner av
+Internet. Ei heller er det en god dato som kan brukes til å markere når det
+ble født. Likevel har internettet i løpet av svært kort tid blitt en del av
+vanlige amerikaneres liv. I følge the Pew Internet and American
+Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt tilgang til internettet
+i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2635582" href="#ftn.id2635582" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen
+ved utgangen av 2004.
</p><p>
Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
blitt endret. Noen av disse endringene er teknisk—internettet har
</p><p>
Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
-Med <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>”</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
+Med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt. Med
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>”</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur. Da Noah
-Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Reader</span>”</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
-så var det kommersiell kultur. <a class="indexterm" name="id2999092"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2999102"></a>
+Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Reader</span>»</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
+så var det kommersiell kultur. <a class="indexterm" name="id2693390"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2693398"></a>
</p><p>
Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert. Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
-denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri</span>”</span>. Den
+denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span>. Den
vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
kultur—historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter—ble ikke
Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet. I starten forsiktig, etter
hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
-eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id3057425" href="#ftn.id3057425" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2693439" href="#ftn.id2693439" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
USA. Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon. Det var i
stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
</p><p>
Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
-fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id3057467" href="#ftn.id3057467" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
+fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2693481" href="#ftn.id2693481" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
påvirket det. For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
Det ser ikke slik ut for mange. Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
internettet er fjernt for de fleste. For de få som følger dem, virker de i
hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål—hvorvidt
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>”</span> vil bli beskyttet. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Krigen</span>”</span> som
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> vil bli beskyttet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Krigen</span>»</span> som
har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet—det presidenten for
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3057608" href="#ftn.id3057608" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2693622" href="#ftn.id2693622" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
respektere eiendomsretten. For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
eiendomsrett eller mot den.
</p><p>
Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
Valenti og innholdsindustrien. Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
-på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kreativ
-eiendomsrett</span>”</span>. Jeg tror at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> er galt,
-og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span>,
+på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativ
+eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Jeg tror at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt,
+og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>,
både på og utenfor internettet.
</p><p>
Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
-internettets <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirater</span>”</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
+internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
</p><p>
Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
kontroll. Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
-kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id3057687" href="#ftn.id3057687" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2693701" href="#ftn.id2693701" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
skaperne mot privat kontroll. Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
tradisjonen til velgjørere. I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
utsiden har det ikke. Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
vår tradisjon.
</p><p>
-Historien som følger er om denne krigen. Er det ikke om <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">betydningen
-av teknologi</span>”</span> i vanlig liv. Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
+Historien som følger er om denne krigen. Er det ikke om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">betydningen
+av teknologi</span>»</span> i vanlig liv. Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
eller andre typer. Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
eller på annen måte. Det er ikke en moralsk historie. Ei heller er det et
internett-teknologiene. Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
til denne krigen. Vi må finne en løsning snart.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3057773"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057779"></a><p>
-Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>”</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke like håndfast
-som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så langt mistet
-livet. Likevel er idéene rundt denne <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>”</span> like
-åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres
-bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav
-som eierne av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>”</span> nå hevder. De fleste
-av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som åpenbare. Og dermed
-protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper inn i denne
-eiendomsretten. Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at de nye
-teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tar seg til rette</span>”</span> mot legitime
-krav til <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>”</span>. Det er like klart for oss som det var
-for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen
-manns eiendom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3057831"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057837"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2693788"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2693793"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Lik Causbyenes</strong></span> kamp er denne krigen,
+delvis, om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke
+like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så
+langt mistet livet. Likevel er idéene rundt denne
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> like åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes
+krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss
+tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav som eierne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
+rettigheter</span>»</span> nå hevder. De fleste av oss, som Causbyene, behandler
+disse kravene som åpenbare. Og dermed protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når
+ny teknologi griper inn i denne eiendomsretten. Det er så klart for oss som
+det var fro dem at de nye teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tar seg til
+rette</span>»</span> mot legitime krav til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Det er
+like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å
+stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2693849"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2693855"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2693861"></a><p>
Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre. Jeg har blitt stadig mer
overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
-Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kultur</span>”</span>
-som har vært <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eid</span>”</span> enn det er nå. Og likevel har aldri før
+Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kultur</span>»</span>
+som har vært <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eid</span>»</span> enn det er nå. Og likevel har aldri før
konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av
kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
</p><p>
fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme? Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3057935"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057941"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2693960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2693966"></a><p>
Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk. Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
Causbyene. Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
-mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">immaterielle
-rettigheter</span>”</span>. Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
+mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
+rettigheter</span>»</span>. Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
eiendom. Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
dyptgripende.
</p><p>
-Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> og <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendom</span>”</span>. Mitt mål med
-denne bokens neste to deler er å utforske disse to idéene.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Basketaket</strong></span> som pågår akkurat nå senterer
+seg rundt to idéer: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>. Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er å
+utforske disse to idéene.
</p><p>
Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker. Jeg ønsker ikke
å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
</p><p>
De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
-myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">noe
-nytt</span>”</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt. I stedet for å forstå
+myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noe
+nytt</span>»</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt. I stedet for å forstå
endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
-som trengs for å la <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>”</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
+som trengs for å la <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
til å endre loven—og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon—en konsekvens
for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056520" href="#id3056520" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2692436" href="#id2692436" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056649" href="#id3056649" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2692565" href="#id2692565" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
-å <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ta</span>”</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
+å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby. Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
-meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
-Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>”</span>,
+meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
+Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>»</span>,
<em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
-Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id3056688"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056683"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056898" href="#id3056898" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
+Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2692603"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2692599"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2692873" href="#id2692873" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056832" href="#id3056832" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>”</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2692810" href="#id2692810" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057014" href="#id3057014" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057029" href="#id3057029" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2693004" href="#id2693004" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2693018" href="#id2693018" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2999006" href="#id2999006" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
-Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
-Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>”</span> Pew Internet and American
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2635582" href="#id2635582" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
+Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
+Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057425" href="#id3057425" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2693439" href="#id2693439" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser. Ved
å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
-om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right to
-Privacy</span>”</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3056871"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057467" href="#id3057467" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
+om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to
+Privacy</span>»</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200.
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2692787"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2693481" href="#id2693481" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
-Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id3057475"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057608" href="#id3057608" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
-Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
-Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2693489"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2693622" href="#id2693622" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
+Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
+Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057687" href="#id3057687" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
-Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id3057698"></a>
-</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>
-Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
-en krig mot <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span>. De presise konturene av dette
-konseptet, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp,
-men bildet av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive. Som Lord Mansfield skrev
-i en sak som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere
-noteark,
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2693701" href="#id2693701" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
+Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span>
+<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2693712"></a>
+</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>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Helt siden</strong></span> loven begynte å regulere
+kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet
+av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive. Som Lord Mansfield skrev i en sak
+som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere noteark,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
-etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id3058105" href="#ftn.id3058105" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3058120"></a></blockquote></div><p>
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2694140" href="#ftn.id2694140" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2694155"></a></blockquote></div><p>
-I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">krig</span>”</span> mot
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
+I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krig</span>»</span> mot
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold. Peer-to-peer (p2p)
fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Denne
delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
-opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
-overskuddet.</span>”</span>
+opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
+overskuddet.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
-grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendom</span>”</span> mot denne
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>”</span>. En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
-krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendom</span>”</span> skal være
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gratis</span>”</span>. Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
+grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> mot denne
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span>. En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
+krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> skal være
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span>. Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
kroppspiercing—våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
</p><p>
-Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> er galt, og at
+Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt, og at
pirater bør straffes. Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>”</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng. For mens begrepet
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>»</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng. For mens begrepet
blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
helt sikkert er feil.
</p><p>
tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem. Å ta noe
som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt. Det er en form for
piratvirksomhet.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3058242"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2694276"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2694283"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvalue"></a><p>
Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor
-Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
-rettighet</span>”</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id3058258" href="#ftn.id3058258" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
+Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
+rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2694315" href="#ftn.id2694315" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
rettigheten til denne verdien. Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
-leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id3058281" href="#ftn.id3058281" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">verdi</span>”</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rettighet</span>”</span>—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3058326"></a><p>
+leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2694338" href="#ftn.id2694338" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettighet</span>»</span>—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2694382"></a><p>
Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
eierrettigheter bør virke. Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter. Men teorien om
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>”</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter. It har aldri stått rot
i vårt lovverk.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2694409"></a><p>
I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
til verdien av kreativitet. Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt. Vi
håndtere byrden pålagt av loven—til og med byrden som den bysantiske
kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt. Det var bare nok en kostnad
ved å drive forretning.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3058382"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3058388"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2694447"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2694453"></a><p>
Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
lovens virkeområde. Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kopiering</span>”</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopiering</span>»</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
bredt og obskurt som den gjør. Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt—helt klart slik den påvirker
ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
-straffer. Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fremveksten
-av den kreative klasse</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3058427" href="#ftn.id3058427" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
+straffer. Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremveksten
+av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2694492" href="#ftn.id2694492" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
kreative klassen.
</p><p>
Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon. Vi bør begynne med å forstå
den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
-merkelappen <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058105" href="#id3058105" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
+merkelappen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2694140" href="#id2694140" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058258" href="#id3058258" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2694315" href="#id2694315" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
-Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
-in the Pepsi Generation,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
+Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
+in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058281" href="#id3058281" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2694338" href="#id2694338" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
-Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
-Up,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
+Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
+Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
-Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
-Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
-Globe</em>, 24. november 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id3058306"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058427" href="#id3058427" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
+Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
+Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
+Globe</em>, 24. november 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2694363"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2694492" href="#id2694492" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under. Jeg er helt
klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
-vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id3058469"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058478"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><p>
-I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
-dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
-I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
-distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
-Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
+vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2694534"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2694542"></a>
+</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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>I 1928</strong></span> ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En
+tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn
+<em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>. I november, i Colony teateret i New
+York City, ble den første vidt distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert
+lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som
+skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
</p><p>
Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
<em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>. Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse. Jeg trodde de
tullet med meg. Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt. Det
-var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id3058608" href="#ftn.id3058608" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
+var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2694690" href="#ftn.id2694690" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
-talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
+talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
-bra.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058634"></a>
+bra.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2694716"></a>
</p><p>
Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde—unntatt fra
<em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
Steamboat Willie. Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
-Bill,<sup>[<a name="id3058705" href="#ftn.id3058705" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
+Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2694787" href="#ftn.id2694787" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
som kilde. Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
<em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
Willie</em>. Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
-Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>”</span>,
+Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>»</span>,
at vi får Steamboat Willie. Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
</p><p>
-Denne <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">låningen</span>”</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
+Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">låningen</span>»</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
industrien. Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
-ham.<sup>[<a name="id3058778" href="#ftn.id3058778" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
+ham.<sup>[<a name="id2694860" href="#ftn.id2694860" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger—små variasjoner
over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt. Nøkkelen til
suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene. Med Disney var det lyden som ga
Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3058909"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2694991"></a><p>
Dette er en type kreativitet. Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
feire. Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
denne typen. Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
-Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>”</span>, selv om det vil være
-litt misvisende. Det er mer presist <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Walt
-Disney-kreativitet</span>”</span>—en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
+Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>, selv om det vil være
+litt misvisende. Det er mer presist <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
+Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>—en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
</p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
fersk. Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
levende. Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
år—for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
-opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id3058935" href="#ftn.id3058935" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2695017" href="#ftn.id2695017" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
-opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>”</span> til a
+opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>»</span> til a
kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse
opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
allemannseie. Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
verket. Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>”</span>. Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span>. Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
1928. Det var tilgjengelig for enhver—uansett om de hadde
forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
bygge på uten tillatelse. Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
-</p><p>
-Walt Disney hadde selvfølgelig ikke monopol på <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Walt
-Disney-kreativitet</span>”</span>. Det har heller ikke USA. Normen med fri kultur
-har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og
-svært universell.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2695118"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Walt Disney</strong></span> hadde selvfølgelig ikke
+monopol på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>. Det har heller ikke
+USA. Normen med fri kultur har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære
+nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og svært universell.
</p><p>
Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss. Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
-historiene i disse <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">grafiske historiene</span>”</span> forteller. For en
+historiene i disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grafiske historiene</span>»</span> forteller. For en
japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv. For oss er
-tegneserier <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">menn i strømpebukser</span>”</span>. Og uansett er det ikke
+tegneserier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn i strømpebukser</span>»</span>. Og uansett er det ikke
slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway
for den saks skyld. Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig
måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.
i en annen retning—med en annen historie-linje. Eller tegneserien kan
beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet. Det er ingen
bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>”</span>. Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>»</span>. Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
som ekte doujinshi. Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
</p><p>
Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet. Det
-er enorme. Mer en 33 000 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sirkler</span>”</span> av skapere over hele Japan
+er enorme. Mer en 33 000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sirkler</span>»</span> av skapere over hele Japan
som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet. Mer en 450 000
japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i
langet, for å bytte og selge dem. Dette markedet er parallelt med det
juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
-Doujinshi er helt klart <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">avledede verk</span>”</span>. Det er ingen generell
+Doujinshi er helt klart <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">avledede verk</span>»</span>. Det er ingen generell
praksis hos doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos
manga-skaperne. I stedet er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre
har laget, slik Walt Disney gjorde med <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
-Jr</em>. For både japansk og USAs lov, er å <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ta</span>”</span> uten
+Jr</em>. For både japansk og USAs lov, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> uten
tillatelse fra den opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig. Det er et
brudd på opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et
avledet verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
-blomstrer. Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I
+blomstrer. Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I
amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
Japan i dag. … Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
hverandre. … Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne—ved å se i
tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
-dem</span>”</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id3059231" href="#ftn.id3059231" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2695326" href="#ftn.id2695326" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2695353"></a><p>
Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
-får lov til. Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">er det
-en rekke regler, og du må følge dem</span>”</span>. Det er ting som Supermann
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>”</span> gjøre. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
+får lov til. Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er det
+en rekke regler, og du må følge dem</span>»</span>. Det er ting som Supermann
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
-gamle.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3059284"></a><p>
+gamle.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2695386"></a><p>
Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen. Noen sier at det
nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
forklarer denne reduksjonen. Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
produktivt. Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
-bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id3059310" href="#ftn.id3059310" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
+bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2695411" href="#ftn.id2695411" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
-er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">hold hendene
-borte</span>”</span>-responsen ikke er forstått. Det kan godt være at markedet som
+er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hold hendene
+borte</span>»</span>-responsen ikke er forstått. Det kan godt være at markedet som
helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den,
men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere
ikke saksøker. Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det
finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
-blokkere denne <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">frie takingen</span>”</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
+blokkere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie takingen</span>»</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
</p><p>
Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
som jeg kunne. Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
-større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater</span>”</span>,
-fortalte han meg en ettermiddag. Det er <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
-å tiltale tilfeller som dette</span>”</span>.
+større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater</span>»</span>,
+fortalte han meg en ettermiddag. Det er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
+å tiltale tilfeller som dette</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
-eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
+eller skade dem?
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>La oss ta</strong></span> et øyeblikks pause.
</p><p>
Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
</p><p>
-Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendom</span>”</span>. Jeg er en av de som
+Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>. Jeg er en av de som
feierer. Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3059422" href="#ftn.id3059422" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2695533" href="#ftn.id2695533" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
</p><p>
Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
-verdi der ute som <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendom</span>”</span> ikke dekker. Jeg mener ikke
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>”</span> men heller, at en verdi
+verdi der ute som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke dekker. Jeg mener ikke
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>»</span> men heller, at en verdi
som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og
ikke-kommersiell produksjon. Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett
med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme
oppdaget. Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at
Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene. Det var intet galt
med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rimelig</span>”</span>. Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig</span>»</span>. Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
</p><p>
i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
</p><p>
Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
-at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stjeler</span>”</span>. Denne formen for
+at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span>. Denne formen for
Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
</p><p>
Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
begynner å se etter dem. Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
-uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
+uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
-vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?</span>”</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
+vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?</span>»</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
(Er det <span class="emphasis"><em>noen</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
</p><p>
Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
er fri. Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
-er i stedet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
-er?</span>”</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
+er i stedet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
+er?</span>»</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
å ta, og bygge på? Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer? Til
medlemmer av kongefamilien? Til de ti største selskapene på New
York-børsen? Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt,
Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre. Vår var en fri
kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058608" href="#id3058608" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2694690" href="#id2694690" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34–35.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058705" href="#id3058705" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2694787" href="#id2694787" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>. I
følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>”</span> (Delille),
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>”</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
-No. 1</span>”</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>”</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>”</span> var allerede allemannseie. Brev fra
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>»</span> (Delille),
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>»</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
+No. 1</span>»</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>»</span> var allerede allemannseie. Brev fra
David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
forfatteren.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058778" href="#id3058778" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2694860" href="#id2694860" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
-Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Mouse
-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>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058935" href="#id3058935" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
+Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
+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>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2695017" href="#id2695017" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode. Jeg har beregnet
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gjennomsnittlig</span>”</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gjennomsnittlig</span>»</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger. Hvis 100
opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og
fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2
år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#6</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059231" href="#id3059231" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2695326" href="#id2695326" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059310" href="#id3059310" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2695411" href="#id2695411" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
-Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
-Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">det
+Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
+Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span>
+<em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og
anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at
alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
-rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>”</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059422" href="#id3059422" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
+rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>»</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2695533" href="#id2695533" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se
også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>”</span>-rettigheter—opphavsretter, patenter,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rettigheter—opphavsretter, patenter,
varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter—men egenskapene til disse
-rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id3059443"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
-I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
-produsere det vi ville kalle <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fotografier</span>”</span>. Rimelig nok ble de
-kalt <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>”</span>. Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
+rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2695554"></a>
+</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><a class="indexterm" name="id2695790"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>I 1839</strong></span> fant Louis Daguerre opp den første
+praktiske teknologien for å produsere det vi ville kalle
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>. Rimelig nok ble de kalt
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>»</span>. Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
velstående amatører. (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
-ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.) <a class="indexterm" name="id3059702"></a>
+ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)
</p><p>
Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
sterk. Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
-lage <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">automatiske bilder</span>”</span>. William Talbot oppdaget snart en
-prosess for å lage <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">negativer</span>”</span>. Men da negativene var av
+lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatiske bilder</span>»</span>. William Talbot oppdaget snart en
+prosess for å lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">negativer</span>»</span>. Men da negativene var av
glass, og måtte holdes fuktige, forble prosessen kostbar og tung. På
1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det. Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
-fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id3059737"></a>
+fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id2695853"></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
</p><p>
Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken. Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
-dens enkelhet. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
-resten.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3059787" href="#ftn.id3059787" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
-<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id3059801"></a>
+dens enkelhet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
+resten.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2695902" href="#ftn.id2695902" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
+<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2695916"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
kunnskap om kunstarten. Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
-et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id3057076" href="#ftn.id3057076" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
+et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2693052" href="#ftn.id2693052" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
For $25 kunne alle ta bilder. Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
om dagen. Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
-prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3059866" href="#ftn.id3059866" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
-samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3059875" href="#ftn.id3059875" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3059884"></a><p>
+prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2695981" href="#ftn.id2695981" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
+samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2695991" href="#ftn.id2695991" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2696000"></a><p>
Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
økonomisk. Den var sosial. Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
-stand til tidligere. Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">For første
+stand til tidligere. Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For første
gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
og dens aktiviteter. … For første gang i historien fantes det en
autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
-laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3059817" href="#ftn.id3059817" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
+laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2695932" href="#ftn.id2695932" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører. Med
Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere. Barrièren for å uttrykke
-seg var senket. Snobber ville fnyse over <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kvaliteten</span>”</span>,
+seg var senket. Snobber ville fnyse over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kvaliteten</span>»</span>,
profesjonelle ville avvise den som irrelevant. Men se et barn studere
hvordan best velge bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags
kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken muliggjorde. Demokratiske verktøy ga
fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
kursen til fotograferingen betydelig. Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
-trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id3059969" href="#ftn.id3059969" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
+trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2696084" href="#ftn.id2696084" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
-ut. Fotografen <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tok</span>”</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
+ut. Fotografen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok</span>»</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
fotografert—røvet til seg noe av verdi. Noen trodde til og med at han
tok målets sjel. På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3059603"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2695714"></a><p>
På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt. Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område. (Louis
Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
-annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id3060039" href="#ftn.id3060039" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
+annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2696153" href="#ftn.id2696153" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2696193"></a><p>
Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene. Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre. I stedet
ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
begrensninger enn resten av oss. Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
-fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id3060093" href="#ftn.id3060093" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
+fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2696214" href="#ftn.id2696214" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
</p><p>
Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
hadde slått ut den andre veien. Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på. Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tyveriet</span>”</span> begått av fotografer. På samme måte som Napster nøt
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tyveriet</span>»</span> begått av fotografer. På samme måte som Napster nøt
fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak
-nytt fordeler fra <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bilde-rettighets</span>”</span>-brudd til deres
+nytt fordeler fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde-rettighets</span>»</span>-brudd til deres
fotografer. Vi kan forestille oss at loven da krevede at en form for
tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene. Vi kan
forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge frem slike tillatelser.
av godkjenningssystemet. Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
villa aldri ha skjedd. Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd. Og det
ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
-uttrykksteknologi. Hvis du kjører gjennom området Presidio i San Francisco,
-kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med fargefulle og
-iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>”</span> i stedet for
-navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bare</span>”</span> mentalt i
-prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør. Disse bussene er fylt med
-teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film. Ikke filmen til Eastman. Ikke
-en gang filmen i din videospiller. I stedet er det snakk om
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">filmen</span>”</span> til digitale kamera. Just Think! er et prosjekt som
+uttrykksteknologi.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Hvis du kjører</strong></span> gjennom området Presidio i
+San Francisco, kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med
+fargefulle og iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> i
+stedet for navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare</span>»</span>
+mentalt i prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør. Disse bussene er fylt
+med teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film. Ikke filmen til Eastman.
+Ikke en gang filmen i din videospiller. I stedet er det snakk om
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">filmen</span>»</span> til digitale kamera. Just Think! er et prosjekt som
gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere
den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg. Hvert år besøker
disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media. Ved å
gjøre, så tenker de. Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3060221"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3060228"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2696354"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2696362"></a><p>
Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
og billigere. Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
-dramatisk. Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
+dramatisk. Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000. I dag kan du
-få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3060259" href="#ftn.id3060259" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
+få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2696393" href="#ftn.id2696393" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden. Og det er nå mulig å
forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">medie-skriveføre</span>”</span> eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>”</span>.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">medie-skriveføre</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Media-skriveføre,</span>”</span> eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>”</span> som
-administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">er
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media-skriveføre,</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span> som
+administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er
evnen til … å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker
-dem</span>”</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3060313"></a>
+dem</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2696448"></a>
</p><p>
Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>”</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
-skrive. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>”</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>»</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
+skrive. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>»</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3060341"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2696475"></a><p>
Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
-reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id3060355" href="#ftn.id3060355" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
-viktig å forstå <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>”</span> til media. For på samme måte som
+reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2696489" href="#ftn.id2696489" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
+viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>»</span> til media. For på samme måte som
det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media. Og
akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i
den. En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
skrevet. En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
reflektere over det en har laget.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3060395"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2696530"></a><p>
Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg. Da
det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, … rytme, skritt og
-tekstur</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3060454" href="#ftn.id3060454" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, … rytme, skritt og
+tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2696589" href="#ftn.id2696589" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">spillt</span>”</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spillt</span>»</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den
enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
teknikker nødvendig. Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret
fortellerstemmen til science fiction. Men da han forsøkte å lage et
dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
lære. Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
-forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id3060498" href="#ftn.id3060498" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3060525"></a><p>
+forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id2696633" href="#ftn.id2696633" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2696661"></a><p>
Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
-filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
+filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
blir ledet gjennom en film. Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
å se det, så du aner det ikke. Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du
-ikke at du har vært ledet.</span>”</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
+ikke at du har vært ledet.</span>»</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
film, så har filmen feilet.
</p><p>
Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren—til en som går ut over
skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
skrive.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ikke kunne skrive.</span>”</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kunne skrive.</span>»</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
århundre.
</p><p>
kan bli både lesing og skriving. Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
forståelse for håndverket å skrive. Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede. Målet med
-enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gi folket
+enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gi folket
myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
-uttrykke</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3060611" href="#ftn.id3060611" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
-mulighet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
-århundret</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3060633" href="#ftn.id3060633" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3060640"></a><p>
+uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2696746" href="#ftn.id2696746" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
+mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
+århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2696768" href="#ftn.id2696768" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2696775"></a><p>
Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
andre. Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
</p><p>
Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
skolen. Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
-opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ungene
-dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta</span>”</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
+opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ungene
+dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta</span>»</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle
om—å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
</p><p>
-Ved å bruke hva som helst av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
-finne</span>”</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
-blande <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bilde, lyd og tekst</span>”</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
+Ved å bruke hva som helst av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
+finne</span>»</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
+blande <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde, lyd og tekst</span>»</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få
ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse
-studentene. Prosjektet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
-de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det</span>”</span>, forklarer
+studentene. Prosjektet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
+de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det</span>»</span>, forklarer
Barish. Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk—mye mer vellykket
og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst.
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe
-annet</span>”</span>, forklarer Barish. Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
+annet</span>»</span>, forklarer Barish. Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> idéene godt.
Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?</span>”</span> spurte
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?</span>»</span> spurte
jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis. Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive?
Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">konstruere mening</span>”</span>. Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">konstruere mening</span>»</span>. Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å
stave. Tekstforming er bare en del—og i større grad ikke den
kraftigste delen—for å konstruere mening. Som Daley forklarte i den
Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting. Men han kan ikke lese teksten
-din. Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
-Ingenting du gjør betyr noe</span>”</span>. Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
+din. Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
+Ingenting du gjør betyr noe</span>»</span>. Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv. Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil
-han avvise deg. Men hvis du i stedet sier, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Vel, med alle disse
+han avvise deg. Men hvis du i stedet sier, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, med alle disse
tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet. Spill musikk til
meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener
reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere
-temaet</span>”</span>. Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og … si
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
-film</span>”</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
+temaet</span>»</span>. Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og … si
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
+film</span>»</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.…
</p><p>
Dette bemyndiger enormt. Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
-faktumet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
-skrive noe</span>”</span>. Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
+faktumet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
+skrive noe</span>»</span>. Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
</p><p>
noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe. De trengte faktisk å
bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra. Men de hadde begynt å
forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
-et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
-til denne nyheten. Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
-ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
-disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til. Genialiteten i denne
-forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
-perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2696998"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Da to fly</strong></span> krasjet inn i World Trade
+Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og et fjerde inn i et jorde i
+Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg til denne nyheten.
+Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og ukene som fulgte
+gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om disse hendelsene
+som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til. Genialiteten i denne forferdelige
+terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var perfekt tidsatt
+for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
</p><p>
Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse. Det var musikk
spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
over skjermen. Det var en formel for intervjuer. Det var
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">balanse</span>”</span> og seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
-vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">nyheter som
-underholdning</span>”</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3060904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3060909"></a><p>
-Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tragedien
-11. september</span>”</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
+vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
+underholdning</span>»</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2697048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2697054"></a><p>
+Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedien
+11. september</span>»</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
fortellinger om de samme hendelsene. Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde
en veldig annerledes smak. Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget
jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises. Jeg
ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale. For på
samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
-Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Just
-Think!</span>”</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
+Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just
+Think!</span>»</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
</p><p>
Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
dagbok. I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
måte—det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2697142"></a><p>
Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter. Det er noen som
bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv. Men det er mange som
bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
valgene teller. Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
rutinepreget. De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2697196"></a><p>
Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg. Demokrati betyr at folket
styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg. I vår tradisjon betyr det
også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning. Dette var idéen som
fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">demokratiet i Amerika</span>”</span>. Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratiet i Amerika</span>»</span>. Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
fascinerte han—det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk
retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere. Og det som fascinerte
han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge
frem. De diskuterte. Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">riktig</span>”</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">riktig</span>”</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
-avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id3061085" href="#ftn.id3061085" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
+avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2697243" href="#ftn.id2697243" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag. Og i dets sted er det
ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
-innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id3061107" href="#ftn.id3061107" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
+innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id2697265" href="#ftn.id2697265" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
-å gjennomføre <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>”</span>.
+å gjennomføre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
skje. Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
mot å diskutere politikk. Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
-ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id3061145" href="#ftn.id3061145" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
+ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2697303" href="#ftn.id2697303" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogs1"></a><p>
Så kommer bloggen. Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
problemet. Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
fra hos noen få blogger. Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
-lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id3061201"></a>
-</p><p>
+lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2697372"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2697379"></a><p>
En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
-store mediene. Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel. Da Logg <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sa
-feil</span>”</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
+store mediene. Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel. Da Logg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sa
+feil</span>»</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at
historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer.
Det skjedde. Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren.
Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien. Etter hvert dukket flere og
-flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>”</span> opp. Så dukket
+flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>»</span> opp. Så dukket
historien opp igjen hos de store mediene. Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
-trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id3061236" href="#ftn.id3061236" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3061247"></a>
+trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id2697414" href="#ftn.id2697414" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2697425"></a>
</p><p>
Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
mediene. Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell
-fraværet av finansiell <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">interessekonflikt</span>”</span>. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jeg tror du
-må ta interessekonflikten</span>”</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
-meg. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
+fraværet av finansiell <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interessekonflikt</span>»</span>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg tror du
+må ta interessekonflikten</span>»</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
+meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
-rydde den av veien.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3061329"></a><p>
+rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2697506"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2697513"></a><p>
Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
konsentert (mer om dette under). Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan—slik CNN innrømte at de
gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
-ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id3061063" href="#ftn.id3061063" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
+ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2697221" href="#ftn.id2697221" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
en mer konsistent rapportering. (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq. New York-hovedkvarteret ba
reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte
tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var <span class="emphasis"><em>dem</em></span> som
-skrev <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">historien</span>”</span>.)
+skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">historien</span>»</span>.)
</p><p> Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
-debatten—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">amatør</span>”</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
+debatten—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amatør</span>»</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
komme med deres rapport. Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
-hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id3061392" href="#ftn.id3061392" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
-til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">triangulere</span>”</span>,
+hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id2697576" href="#ftn.id2697576" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
+til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulere</span>»</span>,
som Winer formulerer det, sannheten. Blogger, sier Winer,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
-fjernet</span>”</span>— med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
+fjernet</span>»</span>— med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
</p><p>
Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av
-blogger. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet</span>”</span>, spår
+blogger. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet</span>»</span>, spår
Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
-Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">journalismen</span>”</span> er glad for
+Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalismen</span>»</span> er glad for
dette—noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
-blogging.<sup>[<a name="id3061429" href="#ftn.id3061429" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
-fortsatt er i en overgangsfase. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
-oppvarmingsøvelser</span>”</span>, fortalte Winer meg. Det er mye som må modne før
+blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2697612" href="#ftn.id2697612" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
+fortsatt er i en overgangsfase. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
+oppvarmingsøvelser</span>»</span>, fortalte Winer meg. Det er mye som må modne før
dette området har sin modne effekt. Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa
-Wiener at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned</span>”</span>.
+Wiener at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
-Slik tale påvirker demokratiet. Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">du
+Slik tale påvirker demokratiet. Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">du
trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en
-portvokter</span>”</span>. Det er sant. Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
+portvokter</span>»</span>. Det er sant. Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener,
og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige
temaer. Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt. Det er
kritikk forbedrer demokratiet. I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
blogger der det skrives på denne måten. Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3061553"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
-John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i
-følge hans eget nettsted, er <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og … å skape
-kunnskapsøkologier for å skape … innovasjon</span>”</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2697756"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2697764"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> er sjefsforsker ved
+Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i følge hans eget nettsted, er
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og … å skape kunnskapsøkologier for å skape
+… innovasjon</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt. Jeg er
teknologiene påvirker læring.
</p><p>
-Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle. Da <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mange av oss vokste opp</span>”</span>,
-forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
-gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre</span>”</span>. Men digitale
+Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle. Da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mange av oss vokste opp</span>»</span>,
+forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
+gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre</span>»</span>. Men digitale
teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling—med abstrakte idéer i sin
konkrete form. Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et
reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker. Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan
de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og
se hvordan det blir gjort. Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags
-*bricolage* eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling</span>”</span>, som
+*bricolage* eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling</span>»</span>, som
Brown kaller det. Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
fiklingen til mange andre.
</p><p>
FS/OSS-program til å fungere. Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
</p><p>
-Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>”</span>, i
-følge Brown. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så … slipper
+Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>»</span>, i
+følge Brown. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så … slipper
du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
-forbedre den</span>”</span>. Og hver innsats er et slags læretid. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Åpen
-kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>”</span>.
+forbedre den</span>»</span>. Og hver innsats er et slags læretid. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
+kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
-I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
-er kildekode</span>”</span>. Unger <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
+I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
+er kildekode</span>»</span>. Unger <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
gjør i garasjen din. Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. … Du
fikler med andre folks greier. Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
-du.</span>”</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
+du.</span>»</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
</p><p>
Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold. Og det skjer på samme
samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet. Som Brown
-formulerer det, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
-til flere former for intelligens</span>”</span>. Tidligere teknologier, slik som
+formulerer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
+til flere former for intelligens</span>»</span>. Tidligere teknologier, slik som
skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst. Men nettet
-fremmer mye mer enn tekst. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Nettet … si hvis du er musikalsk,
+fremmer mye mer enn tekst. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Nettet … si hvis du er musikalsk,
hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
…da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet. Det kan
-fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3061737"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3061745"></a><p>
+fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2697954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2697961"></a><p>
Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
</p><p>
Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
-Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>) har utviklet et
-kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>”</span> slik det
-gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id3061796" href="#ftn.id3061796" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det
+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
+kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>»</span> slik det
+gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2698012" href="#ftn.id2698012" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det
handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
loven.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
-på vei</span>”</span>, forklarer Brown. Vi må <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
-vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>”</span>.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
+på vei</span>»</span>, forklarer Brown. Vi må <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
+vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Likevel</span>”</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
-føre bevis for, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Likevel</span>»</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
+føre bevis for, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. … We
bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
-system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>”</span>.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3061855"></a><p>
+system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>»</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2698071"></a><p>
Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
denne kreativiteten over alt. Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
teknologien.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>”</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
-møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>»</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
+møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
nedstemthet.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059787" href="#id3059787" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2695902" href="#id2695902" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057076" href="#id3057076" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2693052" href="#id2693052" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
-Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id3059840"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059866" href="#id3059866" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
+Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id2695955"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2695981" href="#id2695981" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059875" href="#id3059875" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2695991" href="#id2695991" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059817" href="#id3059817" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2695932" href="#id2695932" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059969" href="#id3059969" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696084" href="#id2696084" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
<em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
<em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060039" href="#id3060039" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696153" href="#id2696153" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
-Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>”</span>,
-<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id3060050"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3060058"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060093" href="#id3060093" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
+Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>»</span>,
+<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2696165"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2696173"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696214" href="#id2696214" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
-Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
+Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Privacy</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48
(1960) 398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060259" href="#id3060259" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696393" href="#id2696393" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
-H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
-Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>”</span>
+H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
+Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060355" href="#id3060355" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696489" href="#id2696489" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
-(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Findings on
-Family and TV Study</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
+(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on
+Family and TV Study</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1997, B6.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060454" href="#id3060454" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696589" href="#id2696589" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3060462"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3060470"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060498" href="#id3060498" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2696597"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2696605"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696633" href="#id2696633" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
-Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>”</span>, E!online,
+Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>»</span>, E!online,
4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
-<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>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060611" href="#id3060611" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
+<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>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696746" href="#id2696746" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id3060617"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060633" href="#id3060633" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2696752"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2696768" href="#id2696768" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061085" href="#id3061085" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2697243" href="#id2697243" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
America</em>, bk. 1, overs. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
2000), kap. 16.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061107" href="#id3061107" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2697265" href="#id2697265" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
-Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Deliberation Day</span>”</span>,
+Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day</span>»</span>,
<em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061145" href="#id3061145" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2697303" href="#id2697303" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2001), 65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061236" href="#id3061236" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2697414" href="#id2697414" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
-Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
-Pot</span>”</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061063" href="#id3061063" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
+Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
+Pot</span>»</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2697221" href="#id2697221" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061392" href="#id3061392" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2697576" href="#id2697576" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
-John Schwartz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
-Information Online</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar
-2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
-Strong Overall</span>”</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
+John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
+Information Online</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar
+2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
+Strong Overall</span>»</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#10</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061429" href="#id3061429" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
-
-Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ikke
-alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like stor aksept for ansatte som
-blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i Irak som startet en blogg om
-sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å publisere 12 dager senere på
-forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve Olafson, en
-<em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en
-personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av
-temaene og folkene som han dekket</span>”</span>) <a class="indexterm" name="id3061487"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061796" href="#id3061796" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Technological Access
-Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>”</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2697612" href="#id2697612" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2697643"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2697651"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2697658"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2697664"></a> Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's
+Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
+29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like
+stor aksept for ansatte som blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i
+Irak som startet en blogg om sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å
+publisere 12 dager senere på forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve
+Olafson, en <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å
+ha hatt en personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om
+noen av temaene og folkene som han dekket.</span>»</span>)
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698012" href="#id2698012" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
+Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3061905"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
-Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
-førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
-Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi. Selv om han ikke var
-en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
-søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
+</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="id2698121"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Høsten 2001</strong></span>, ble Jesse Jordan fra
+Oceanside, New York, innrullert som førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer
+Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York. Hans studieprogram ved RPI var
+informasjonsteknologi. Selv om han ikke var en programmerer, bestemte Jesse
+seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en søkemotorteknologi som var
+tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
</p><p>
RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
kvaliteten på søk i nettverket. Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
-enda bedre. Ideen med <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intranett</span>”</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
+enda bedre. Idéen med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranett</span>»</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
</p><p>
Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
-RPI. Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for innspillingsindustri i USA,
-RIAA, wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han
-ikke en gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter. Noen få timer senere
-ble Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene. Mens han leste
+RPI. Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
+wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
+gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter. Noen få timer senere ble
+Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene. Mens han leste
disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
forbauset.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>”</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>»</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
ikke gjorde noe galt. … Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller … hva jeg hadde gjort med den. Jeg
mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
arbeidet til pirater. Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
-bruke</span>”</span>—igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
+bruke</span>»</span>—igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2698374"></a><p>
Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat. De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
-dermed <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">med vilje</span>”</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene. De krevde
+dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">med vilje</span>»</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene. De krevde
at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt. I saker
-med <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>”</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
-som advokater kaller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>”</span>. Disse skadene
+med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>»</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
+som advokater kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>»</span>. Disse skadene
tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
$15 000 000.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2698400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2698410"></a><p>
Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
situasjoner var lik den til Jesse. Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">erstatning</span>”</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på. Hvis du summerte
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">erstatning</span>»</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på. Hvis du summerte
opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>—seks ganger det
<span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
-2001.<sup>[<a name="id3062201" href="#ftn.id3062201" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3062218"></a><p>
+2001.<sup>[<a name="id2698443" href="#ftn.id2698443" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2698460"></a><p>
Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre. De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
onkel var advokat. Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA. De krevde å få vite
hvor mye penger Jesse hadde. Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
sommerjobber og annet arbeid. De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2698481"></a><p>
RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt. Han
nektet. De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
hans liv. Han nektet. De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig. (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
-meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Du ønsker
-ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>”</span>) Og gjennom det hele
+meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ønsker
+ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>»</span>) Og gjennom det hele
insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
</p><p>
</p><p>
Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
-</p><p>
-Innspillingsindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.
-La oss legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen. Hvor er
-moralen i et søksmål som dette? Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam. RIAA er
-en spesielt mektig lobby. Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer
-enn $1 million i året. Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.
-Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id3062278" href="#ftn.id3062278" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2698522"></a><p>
+Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral. La oss
+legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen. Hvor er moralen i
+et søksmål som dette? Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam. RIAA er en spesielt
+mektig lobby. Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $1
+million i året. Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt. Den
+gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2698527" href="#ftn.id2698527" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
påvirke og styre politikken. Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
-student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id3062323" href="#ftn.id3062323" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
+student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2698584" href="#ftn.id2698584" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
for RIAA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
absurd det RIAA har gjort.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
-aktivist. Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
+aktivist. Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. … Han er ingen
treklemmer. … Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap. Og han ønsker å
-korrigere rullebladet.</span>”</span>
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062201" href="#id3062201" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+korrigere rullebladet.</span>»</span>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698443" href="#id2698443" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
-Tim Goral, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
-Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
+Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
+Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062278" href="#id3062278" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698527" href="#id2698527" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
(27–2042—Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062323" href="#id3062323" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698584" href="#id2698584" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
-Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">KaZaA and
-Punishment,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
+Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and
+Punishment,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
10. september 2003, A24.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel
4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Pirater</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
-Hvis <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen
-til andre uten deres tillatelse—hvis <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
-rettighet</span>”</span> er sant—da er historien om innholdsindustrien en
-historie om piratvirksomhet. Hver eneste viktige sektor av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">store
-medier</span>”</span> i dag—film, plater, radio og kabel-TV—kom fra en
-slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen. Den konsekvente fortellingen
-er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne generasjonens
-borgerskap—inntil nå.
+</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="id2698659"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr</strong></span>
+å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten deres tillatelse—hvis
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> er sant—da er historien om
+innholdsindustrien en historie om piratvirksomhet. Hver eneste viktige
+sektor av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store medier</span>»</span> i dag—film, plater, radio og
+kabel-TV—kom fra en slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen. Den
+konsekvente fortellingen er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne
+generasjonens borgerskap—inntil nå.
</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>
-Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id3062435" href="#ftn.id3062435" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
+Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2698711" href="#ftn.id2698711" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
Edison. Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
-monopol-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kartell</span>”</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
+monopol-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kartell</span>»</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter—patenter. Edison
stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
undergrunnsmarked.
</p><p>
-With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
-nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
-forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company to block
-the entry of non-licensed independents. With coercive tactics that have
-become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment,
-discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
-effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
-exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
-defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id3062516" href="#ftn.id3062516" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3062548"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3062555"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3062561"></a>
+Med et land som så en kolosal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
+nickelodeons, reagerte patentselskapet på bevegelsen av uavhengige med å
+stifte et hardhendt datterselskap ved navn General Film Company for å
+blokkere innføringen av ulisensierte uavhengige. Med tvangstaktikker som
+har blitt legendariske, konfiserte General Film ulisensiert utstyr, stoppet
+varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
+monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
+unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
+kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id2698792" href="#ftn.id2698792" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2698836"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2698842"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2698848"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">independents,</span>”</span> were companies
-like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
-resisted. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
-`accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
-sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3062582" href="#ftn.id3062582" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to flee the East
-Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers
-there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And the leaders
-of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
+Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige</span>»</span>, var selskaper som Fox.
+Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
+tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
+ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2698871" href="#ftn.id2698871" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
+til å flykte til østkysten. Californa var fjernt nok fra Edisons
+innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
+frykte loven. Og lederne blant Hollywods filmskapere, Fox mest
+fremtredende, gjorde akkurat dette.
</p><p>
California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
lover spredte seg til slutt vestover. Men fordi patenter tildeler
-patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">begrenset</span>”</span> monopol (kun sytten
+patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> monopol (kun sytten
år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
kreative rettigheter.
</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>
-Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
+Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
musikk.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
3062658"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
2698951"></a><p>
På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
deres musikk. Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
-Russels populære låt <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>”</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
+Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3062686"></a><p>
-Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>”</span> ved hjelp av
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2698979"></a><p>
+Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span> ved hjelp av
Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano? Her snublet loven. Det
var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
gjorde innspillingen. Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn. Men det var ikke helt klart
-at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>”</span> hvis jeg
+at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> hvis jeg
spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
innspillingene. På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3062715"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2699008"></a><p>
Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
å røve. Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
-det,<a class="indexterm" name="id3062751"></a>
+det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2699043"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten. En komponist skriver en sang eller
en opera. En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
registrerer opphavsretten til den. Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
-om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3062778" href="#ftn.id3062778" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
-were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of
-American composers,</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3062811" href="#ftn.id3062811" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>”</span> was thereby <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">at the complete
-mercy of this one pirate.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3062825" href="#ftn.id3062825" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As
-John Philip Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">When they
-make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3062839" href="#ftn.id3062839" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
-arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
-argued that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
-automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
-before their introduction.</span>”</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
-of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id3062860" href="#ftn.id3062860" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
-innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to consider first the
-interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
-are.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>”</span> the general counsel of
-the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
-there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
-defined by statute.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3062884" href="#ftn.id3062884" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3062894"></a>
-</p><p>
-
-The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
-<span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the law to
-make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mechanical
-reproductions</span>”</span> of their music. But rather than simply granting the
-composer complete control over the right to make mechanical reproductions,
-Congress gave recording artists a right to record the music, at a price set
-by Congress, once the composer allowed it to be recorded once. This is the
-part of copyright law that makes cover songs possible. Once a composer
-authorizes a recording of his song, others are free to record the same song,
-so long as they pay the original composer a fee set by the law.
-</p><p>
-American law ordinarily calls this a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">compulsory license,</span>”</span> but
-I will refer to it as a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">statutory license.</span>”</span> A statutory
-license is a license whose key terms are set by law. After Congress's
-amendment of the Copyright Act in 1909, record companies were free to
-distribute copies of recordings so long as they paid the composer (or
-copyright holder) the fee set by the statute.
-</p><p>
-This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham writes a
-novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham gives the
-publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
-for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham,
-and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's
-work except with permission of Grisham. <a class="indexterm" name="id3062949"></a>
-</p><p>
-But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
-effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
-through a kind of piracy—by giving recording artists a weaker right
-than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
-their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
-control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
-gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
-gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
-was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
-the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
-follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id3062475" href="#ftn.id3062475" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3062990"></a>
-</p><p>
-While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
-historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
-records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary relates,
+om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2699070" href="#ftn.id2699070" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2699099"></a><p>
+Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, tallentet og geniet til amerikanske
+komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id2699116" href="#ftn.id2699116" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkpubliseringsindistrien</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i
+denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2699133" href="#ftn.id2699133" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
+Philip Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de
+tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2699150" href="#ftn.id2699150" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+Disse argumentene høres omtrent ut som argumentene fra våre dager. Det samme
+gjør argumentene fra den andre siden. Oppfinnerne som utviklet det
+auomatiske pianoet argumenterte med at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er fullt mulig å vise at
+introduksjonen av automatiske musikkspillere ikke har fratatt noen komponist
+noe han hadde før det ble introdusert.</span>»</span> I stedet økte maskinene
+salget av noteark.<sup>[<a name="id2699177" href="#ftn.id2699177" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> Uansett,
+argumenterte oppfinnerne, jobben til kongressen var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å først vurdere
+interessen til [folket], som de representerte, og som de skal
+tjene.</span>»</span>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alt snakk om 'tyveri',</span>»</span> skrev sjefsjuristen
+til American Graphophone Company, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er kun nonsens, for det finnes
+ingen eiendom i musikalske ideer, skriftlig eller kunstnerisk, unntatt det
+som er definert i loven.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2699201" href="#ftn.id2699201" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2699213"></a>
+</p><p>
+
+Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
+komponisten og innspillingsartisten. Kongressen endret loven slik at
+komponisten fikk betalt for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekaniske reproduksjonen</span>»</span> av
+deres musikk. Men i stedet for å ganske enkelt gi komponisten full kontroll
+over rettigheten til å lage mekaniske reproduksjoner, ga kongressen
+innspillingsartister rett en til å spille inn musikk, til en pris satt av
+kongressen, så snart komponisten har tillatt at den ble spilt inn en gang.
+Det er denne delen av opphavsrettsloven som gjør cover-låter mulig. Så
+snart en komponist tillater en innspilling av hans sang, har andre mulighet
+til å spille inn samme sang, så lenge de betaler den originale komponisten
+et gebyr fastsatt av loven.
+</p><p>
+Amerikansk lov kaller dette vanligvis en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tvangslisens</span>»</span>, men
+jeg vil referere til dette som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemt lisens</span>»</span>. En
+lovbestemt lisens er en lisens hvis nøkkelvilkår er bestemt i lovverket.
+Etter kongressens endring av opphavsrettsloven i 1909, sto plateselskapene
+fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
+komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
+</p><p>
+Dette er et unntak i opphavsrettsloven. Når John Grisham skriver en roman
+så kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren
+tillatelse til det. Girsham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst
+betaling for den tillatelsen. Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed
+bestemt av Grisham og opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
+bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2699283"></a>
+</p><p>
+Men loven som styrer innspillinger gir innspillingsartisten mindre. Og
+dermed er effekten at loven <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidierer</em></span>
+musikkindustrien med et slags piratvirksomhet—ved å gi
+innspillingsartister en svakere rettighet enn de gir kreative forfattere.
+The Beatles har mindre kontroll over deres kreative verker enn Grisham har.
+Og de som nyter godt av at de har mindre kontroll er musikkindustrien og
+folket. Musikkindustrien får noe av verdi for mindre enn de ellers måtte
+betalt, og folket får tilgang til en større mengde musikalsk kreativitet.
+Kongressen var faktisk svært eksplisitt i sine grunner for å dele ut denne
+rettigheten. Den fryktet monopolmakten til rettighetsinnehaverne, og at
+denne makten skulle kvele påvølgende kreativitet.<sup>[<a name="id2698751" href="#ftn.id2698751" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2699330"></a>
+</p><p>
+Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
+historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
+innspillinger. Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
+on the Judiciary:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
-must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
-half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
-States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
-disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
-need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
-terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
-recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
-license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
-rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
-with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
-choice.<sup>[<a name="id3063022" href="#ftn.id3063022" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
+plateprodusentene argumenterte energisk for at tvangslisens-systemet måtte
+bevares. De tok utgangspunkt i at musikkindustrien er et forretningsområde
+på en halv milliard dollar som er veldig viktig for økonomien i USA og
+resten av verden. Plater er i dag den viktigste måten å spre musikk, og
+dette fører til spesielle problemer, siden utøvere trenger uhindret tilgang
+til musikalsk materiale på ikke-diskriminerende vilkår. Plateprodusentene
+pekte på at historisk var det ingen innspillingsrettigheter før 1909 og
+1909-endringen i lovverket vedtok tvangslisensen som en gjennomtenkt
+mekanisme for å unngå monopol da de tildelte disse rettighetene. De
+argumenterer med at resultatet har vært at det har strømmet på med innspillt
+musikk, at folket har fått lavere priser, bedre kvalitet og flere
+valg.<sup>[<a name="id2699383" href="#ftn.id2699383" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
-work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.3. Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
+Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
+verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
+</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>
Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
-When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public performance</span>”</span> of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id3063062" href="#ftn.id3063062" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As I described above, the law gives the composer
-(or copyright holder) an exclusive right to public performances of his
-work. The radio station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
+Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id2699447" href="#ftn.id2699447" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
+opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
+hans verk. Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
+fremføringe.
</p><p>
-But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
-of the <span class="emphasis"><em>composer's</em></span> work. The radio station is also
-performing a copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>recording artist's</em></span> work. It's
-one thing to have <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span> sung on the radio by the
-local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling
-Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the
-composition performed on the radio station. And if the law were perfectly
-consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his
-work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work. <a class="indexterm" name="id3063138"></a>
+Men når en radiostasjon spiller en plage, så fremfører det ikke bare et
+eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>komponistens</em></span> verk. Radiostasjonen
+fremfører også et eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>innspillingsartistens</em></span>
+verk. Det er en ting å få <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> sunget på radio av
+det lokale barnekoret. Det er noe ganske annet å få det sunget av Rolling
+Stones eller Lyle Lovett. Innspillingsartisten legger til verdi på
+komposisjonen fremført på radiostasjonen. Og hvis loven var fullstendig
+konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
+innspillingsartisten for hans verk, på samme måten som den betaler
+komponisten av musikken for hans verk. <a class="indexterm" name="id2699539"></a>
</p><p>
-But it doesn't. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio
-station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need
-only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for
-nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist's work for free, even if it
-must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song.
+Men det gjør den ikke. I følge loven som styrer radiofremføringer, trenger
+ikke radiostasjonen å betale noe til innspillingsartisten. Radiostasjonen
+trenger kun å betale komponisten. Radiostasjonen får dermed noe uten å
+betale. Den får fremføre innspillingsartistens verk gratis, selv om den må
+betale komponisten noe for privilegiet det er å spille sangen.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
Denne forskjellen kan bli stor. Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
musikk. Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke. Du eier de eksklusive
populær hitlåt. Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
spiller din sang. Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er. Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
-innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>”</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
+innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
betale henne noen ting.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3063207"></a><p>
-No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
-benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
-performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
-gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
-him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
-nothing.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2699612"></a><p>
+Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
+på dette. I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
+fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg. Kanskje. Men selv om det er slik,
+så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget. Ved å
+gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
+uten å betale.
+</p><
a class="indexterm" name="id2699636"></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>
Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
-When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
-television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
-they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
-selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
-sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
-egregiously than anything Napster ever did— Napster never charged for
-the content it enabled others to give away.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3063243"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3063259"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3063265"></a><p>
-Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft. Rosel
-Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">unfair
-and potentially destructive competition.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3063279" href="#ftn.id3063279" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public interest</span>”</span> in spreading
-the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
-National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
-testimony, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
-property?</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3063306" href="#ftn.id3063306" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
-broadcaster put it,
+Da kabel-TV-gründere først begynte å koble opp fellesskap med kabel-TV i
+1948, nektet de fleste å betale kringkasterne for innholdet som de sendte
+videre til sine kunder. Selv da kabelselskapene begynte å selge tilgang til
+TV-kringkastinger, nektet de å betale for det de solgte. Kabelselskapene
+Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
+noen gang gjorde—Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
+mulig for andre å gi bort.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2699662"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2699669"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2699693"></a><p>
+Kringkastere og opphavsrettsinnehavere var raske til å angripe dette
+tyveriet. Rosel Hyde, styreleder i FCC, så praksisen som en slags
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">urettferdig og potensielt ødeleggende
+konkurranse</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2699712" href="#ftn.id2699712" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> Det kan ha vært en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig interesse</span>»</span> i å øke spredningen til kabel-TV, men som
+Douglas Anello, sjefsjurist hos Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere spurte
+senator Quentin Burdick under sitt vitnemål, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dikterer offentlig
+interesse at du kan bruke noen andres eiendom?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2699746" href="#ftn.id2699746" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
-business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
-for.<sup>[<a name="id3063323" href="#ftn.id3063323" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
+Den uvanlige tingen med kabel-TV-selskapene er at det er de eneste
+selskapene jeg vet om hvor produktet som blir solgt ikke er betalt
+for.<sup>[<a name="id2699764" href="#ftn.id2699764" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
betaler for den. Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
på et svakere ord for å beskrive det. Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
-ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id3063351" href="#ftn.id3063351" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3063362"></a><p>
-Disse var <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>”</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
-Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
-skuespillerne</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3063378" href="#ftn.id3063378" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
+ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2699792" href="#ftn.id2699792" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2699803"></a><p>
+Disse var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>»</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
+Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
+skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2699819" href="#ftn.id2699819" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister
Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
-protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
-already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
-extend that monopoly. … The question here is how much compensation
-they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
-compensation.<sup>[<a name="id3062356" href="#ftn.id3062356" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063430"></a>
+Vårt poeng her er ikke problemet med om hvorvidt du over hode har
+opphavsrettsbeskyttelse. Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
+som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
+utvide dette monopolet. … Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
+ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id2698618" href="#ftn.id2698618" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2699875"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
</p><p>
-It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
-whether cable companies had to pay for the content they
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirated.</span>”</span> In the end, Congress resolved this question in the
-same way that it resolved the question about record players and player
-pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they
-broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
-owner. The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise
-veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
-built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> of the value created
-by broadcasters' content.
-</p><p>
-These separate stories sing a common theme. If <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> means
-using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
-that creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id3063419" href="#ftn.id3063419" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> — then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
-affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
-of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. … The list is long and
-could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
-last. Every generation—until now.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062435" href="#id3062435" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
+Det tok kongressen nesten tredve år før den fikk løst spørsmålet om hvorvidt
+kabel-TV-selskapene måtte betale for innholdet de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span>. Til
+slutt løste kongressen dette spørsmålet på samme måte som den hadde løst
+spørsmålet om platespillere og automatiske pianoer. Ja, kabel-TV-selskapene
+måtte betale for innholdet som de kringkastet, men prisen de måtte betale
+ble ikke satt av opphavsrettsinnehaveren. Prisen ble fastsatt ved lov, slik
+at kringkasterne ikke kunne utøve vetomakt over den nye teknologien
+kabel-TV. Kabel-TV-selskapene bygde dermed deres imperie delvis ved å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Disse separate historiene</strong></span> synger en
+felles melodi. Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke verdien
+fra noen andres kreative eiendom uten tillatelse fra dets skaper—slik
+det stadig oftere beskrives i dag<sup>[<a name="id2699850" href="#ftn.id2699850" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup>
+—da er <span class="emphasis"><em>enhver</em></span> industri påvirket av opphavsrett i
+dag produktet og de som har nytt godt av ulike former for piratvirksomhet.
+Film, plater, radio, kabel-TV. … Listen er lang og kunne vært
+lengre. Hver generasjon ønsker piratene fra den forrige velkommen. Hver
+generasjon—inntil nå.
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698711" href="#id2698711" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
ekstraordinære historien. Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
and Copywrongs</em>, 87–93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eventyr</span>”</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id3062451"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062516" href="#id3062516" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
-
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2698726"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698792" href="#id2698792" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
-Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
-expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
-Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>”</span> available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
-discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
-imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From Edison
-to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
-Propertization of Copyright</span>”</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
-Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
-No. 159. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062582" href="#id3062582" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
+Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) og
+utvidede tekster lagt ut på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
+Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
+fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For en
+diskusjon om det økomiske motivet bak begge disse begresningene, og
+begresningene pålagt av Victor på fonografer, se Randal C. Picker,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal
+and the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (september 2002), University of
+Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working
+Paper No. 159. <a class="indexterm" name="id2698825"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698871" href="#id2698871" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062778" href="#id3062778" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699070" href="#id2699070" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
-and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
-sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
-chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
-Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
-Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="id3062791"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062811" href="#id3062811" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
+Endre og slå sammen lovforslag om å respektere opphavsretten: Høring om
+S. 6330 og H.R. 19853 foran (felles)-komiteene om patenter, 59. kongr. 59,
+1. sess. (1906) (uttalelse til senator Alfred B. Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota,
+formann), gjengitt i <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright
+Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South
+Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="id2699088"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699116" href="#id2699116" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062825" href="#id3062825" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699133" href="#id2699133" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062839" href="#id3062839" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699150" href="#id2699150" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
John Philip Sousa, komponist).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062860" href="#id3062860" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699177" href="#id2699177" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84
(uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
Company of New York).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062884" href="#id3062884" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699201" href="#id2699201" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
-memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
-Graphophone Company Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062475" href="#id3062475" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
+To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
+innlegg fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
+Company Association).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698751" href="#id2698751" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
-H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
-217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
-<em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
-E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven: Høring om S. 2499, S.2900, H.R. 243, og
+H.R. 11794 foran (felles)-komiteen om patenter, 60. kongr., 1. sess., 217
+(1908) (uttalelse fra senator Reed Smooth, formann), gjengitt i
+<em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>, E.
+Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
Reprints, 1976).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063022" href="#id3063022" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
-the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
-1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063062" href="#id3063062" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
-
-See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
-the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
-Broadcast</span>”</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
-play a record on a radio station. Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
-that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
-station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
-Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
-Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699383" href="#id2699383" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Endring av opphavsrettsloven: Rapport som følger H.R. 2512, House Committee
+on the Judiciary, 90. Kongr., 1. sess., House Document no. 83, (8. mars
+1967). Jeg er takknemlig til Glenn Brown for å ha gjort meg oppmerksom på
+denne rapporten.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699447" href="#id2699447" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
+
+Se 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, seksjon 106 og 110. I
+begynnelsen skrev noen plateselskaper <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke lisensiert for
+radiokringkasting</span>»</span> og andre meldinger som ga inntrykk av å begrense
+muligheten tli å spille en plate på en radiostasjon. Dommer Learned Hand
+avviste argumentet om at en advarsel klistret på en plate kunne begrense
+rettighetene til radiostasjonen. Se <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
+Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
+Cir. 1940). Se også Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
-Copyright,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
-70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="id3063094"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063102"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063279" href="#id3063279" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
+Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
+70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="id2699484"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2699493"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699712" href="#id2699712" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
-Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
-on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966) (statement of Rosel
-H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission). <a class="indexterm" name="id3063250"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063306" href="#id3063306" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven—Kabel-TV: Høring om S. 1006 foran
+underkomiteen om patenter, varemerker og opphavsrett av Senate Committee on
+the Judiciary, 89. Kongr., 2. sess., 78 (1966) (uttalelse fra Rosel H. Hyde,
+styreleder i den føderale kommunikasjonskommisjonen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2699673"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699746" href="#id2699746" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
-general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063323" href="#id3063323" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
+Endring i opphavsretttsloven—Kabel-TV, 116 (uttalelse fra Douglas
+A. Anello, sjefsjuristen i Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699764" href="#id2699764" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
-general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063351" href="#id3063351" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven—Kabel-TV, 126 (uttalelse fra Ernest
+W. Jennes, sjefsjurist ved Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
+Inc.).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699792" href="#id2699792" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B. Krim,
-president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
-Artists Television, Inc.).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063378" href="#id3063378" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven—Kabel-TV, 169 (felles uttalelse fra Arthur
+B. Krim, president i United Artists Corp. og John Sinn, president i United
+Artists Television Inc.).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699819" href="#id2699819" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
-president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id3063356"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062356" href="#id3062356" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
+Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (uttalelse fra Charlton Heston,
+president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id2699797"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2698618" href="#id2698618" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id3063382"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063419" href="#id3063419" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
+fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id2699822"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699850" href="#id2699850" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
+Se for eksempel National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free
-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
-piracy—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
-compensation—has grown with the Internet.</span>”</span>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
-There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
-many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
-taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
-many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
-wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
-</p><p>
-
-But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
-taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
-we paint this taking <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> however, we should understand
-its nature a bit more. For the harm of this taking is significantly more
-ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
-ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
-
-</p><div class="section" title="5.1. Piratvirksomhet I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><p>
+Information</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Trusselen fra
+piratvirksomhet—bruken av noen andres kreative verker uten tillatelse
+eller kompenasjons—har vokst med internettet.</span>»</span>
+</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>
+Det røves opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale. Massevis. Og denne
+piratvirksomheten antar mange former. Den mest betydningsfulle er
+kommersiell piratvirksomhet, det å ta andres innhold uten lov i en
+kommersiell setting. På tross av de mange forklaringer om hvorfor dette er
+greit som fremføres i dets forsvar, så er dette galt. Ingen bør gå god for
+det, og loven bør stoppe det.
+</p><p>
+
+Men på samme måte som med piratvirksomheten til kopierings-firma, så
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tas</span>»</span> det på en annen måte som er mer direkte relatert til
+internettet. Denne måten å ta på virker galt for mante, og det er galt mye
+av tiden. Før vi kaller det å ta på denne måten for
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, bør vi dog forstå dets natur litt mer. For
+skaden som denne formen for å ta gjør er betydelig mer tvetydig enn direkte
+kopiering, og loven bør ta hensyn til denne tvetydingheten, slik den har
+gjort ofte tidligere.
+
+</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="id2700035"></a><p>
All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
copy it, and sell it—all without the permission of a copyright
owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
-every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id3063410" href="#ftn.id3063410" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
+every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2699853" href="#ftn.id2699853" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
</p><p>
If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
-intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id3063647" href="#ftn.id3063647" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
+intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2700127" href="#ftn.id2700127" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
nations, this piracy is wrong.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2700171"></a><p>
Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
-otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id3063711" href="#ftn.id3063711" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
+otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2700185" href="#ftn.id2700185" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
-taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
+taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
Barnes & Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
-should it be any different with on-line music?</span>”</span> The difference is, of
+should it be any different with on-line music?</span>»</span> The difference is, of
course, that when you take a book from Barnes & Noble, it has one less
book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
there is not one less CD that can be sold. The physics of piracy of the
doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">take</span>”</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take</span>»</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
-permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span>
+permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
means.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2700273"></a><p>
Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">steal</span>”</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
Microsoft. Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft. Without
-piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. <a class="indexterm" name="id3063816"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3063823"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063829"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063840"></a>
+piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. <a class="indexterm" name="id2700297"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2700303"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2700309"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2700321"></a>
</p><p>
This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
to say who gets access to what—at least ordinarily. And if the law
properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
-access, then violating the law is still wrong. <a class="indexterm" name="id3063567"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063865"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3063886"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063892"></a>
+access, then violating the law is still wrong. <a class="indexterm" name="id2700046"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2700346"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2700366"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2700372"></a>
</p><p>
draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
</p><p>
But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
-suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span>
-is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> is wrong if that term is
+suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span>
+is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong if that term is
understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
content or new ways of doing business. Neither our tradition nor any
-tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> in that sense of the
+tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> in that sense of the
term.
</p><p>
This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
</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>
-The key to the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
-that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3063976" href="#ftn.id3063976" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
+The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
+that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2700457" href="#ftn.id2700457" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2700475"></a><p>
Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations. Like
every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
-Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id3064000" href="#ftn.id3064000" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
+Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2700488" href="#ftn.id2700488" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
crew had simply put together components that had been developed
-independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id3064030"></a>
+independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2700524"></a>
</p><p>
The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
-there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id3064044" href="#ftn.id3064044" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
+there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id2700537" href="#ftn.id2700537" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music—28 percent of
-Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id3064093" href="#ftn.id3064093" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
+Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2700586" href="#ftn.id2700586" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
-May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id3064121" href="#ftn.id3064121" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
+May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2700615" href="#ftn.id2700615" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
-being <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taken</span>”</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
+being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
they hadn't before.
</p><p>
takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
-of purchasing. <a class="indexterm" name="id3064181"></a>
+of purchasing. <a class="indexterm" name="id2700674"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
-solid weekend <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">recalling</span>”</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
+solid weekend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recalling</span>»</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is
still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
</p><p>
Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
-economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id3064251" href="#ftn.id3064251" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
+economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2700744" href="#ftn.id2700744" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
exposure to music is good) and harmless to the artist (since the work is
not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
-type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">theft</span>”</span> that is
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">devastating</span>”</span> the industry.
+type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> that is
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">devastating</span>»</span> the industry.
</p><p>
While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young put it,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
-fought it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3064304" href="#ftn.id3064304" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
+fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2700798" href="#ftn.id2700798" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
</p><p>
Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
-turnaround. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the end,</span>”</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the
+turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
`crisis' … was not the fault of the tapers—who did not [stop
after MTV came into being]—but had to a large extent resulted from
-stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3063722" href="#ftn.id3063722" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
+stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2700197" href="#ftn.id2700197" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
</p><p>
We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause. The
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">net harm</span>”</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">net harm</span>»</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
it might be close.
</p><p>
In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
-million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id3064410" href="#ftn.id3064410" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
+million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2700904" href="#ftn.id2700904" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
-account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
-price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3064468" href="#ftn.id3064468" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
+account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
+price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2700962" href="#ftn.id2700962" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
-<em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
+<em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
<em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
-get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3064505" href="#ftn.id3064505" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
+get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2700998" href="#ftn.id2700998" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
</p><p>
There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
-industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
-song and stealing a CD?</span>”</span>—but their own numbers reveal the
+industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
+song and stealing a CD?</span>»</span>—but their own numbers reveal the
difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
-were a lost sale—if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
-[his] profit</span>”</span>—then the industry would have suffered a 100
+were a lost sale—if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
+[his] profit</span>»</span>—then the industry would have suffered a 100
percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
These are the harms—alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
One benefit is type C sharing—making available content that is
technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
-are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id3064554" href="#ftn.id3064554" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
+are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2701048" href="#ftn.id2701048" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
<span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2701087"></a><p>
In real space—long before the Internet—the market had a simple
response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
-of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id3064595" href="#ftn.id3064595" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
+of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2701101" href="#ftn.id2701101" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3064645"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2701162"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2701168"></a><p>
Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
available isn't making money from making the content available. It is also
different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
-of Bernstein's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>”</span> I still have it. That
+of Bernstein's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>»</span> I still have it. That
difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
well?
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><p>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
-would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">real</span>”</span> book. People
+would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> book. People
would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
great book!)
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2701250"></a><p>
Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
important in order to protect type A content.
</p><p>
The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
-says, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>”</span> we must also ask,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
+says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>»</span> we must also ask,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
-unavailable?</span>”</span>
+unavailable?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
-of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
-good. And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
+of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
+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
way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
balance will be found only with time.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling? Er ikke
-angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling? Er ikke
+angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
-good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">down to
-zero.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3064775" href="#ftn.id3064775" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
+good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to
+zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2701328" href="#ftn.id2701328" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
less.
-</p><p>
-So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>”</span> threatened
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2701377"></a><p>
+So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
-that their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> was not being respected (since
+that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being respected (since
the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
</p><p>
cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
<span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
control over the future (cable).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3064883"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2701441"></a><p>
In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
-device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">record</span>”</span> button, the device could
+device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">record</span>»</span> button, the device could
be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
-only if there were a special <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy me</span>”</span> signal on the line. It
+only if there were a special <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy me</span>»</span> signal on the line. It
was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
</p><p>
MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
-called VCRs <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>”</span> He warned, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">When there are 20,
+called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20,
30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
`tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
-asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3064943" href="#ftn.id3064943" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
-sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>”</span> he told Congress,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
+asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2701501" href="#ftn.id2701501" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
+sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
-basic economics and plain common sense.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3064964" href="#ftn.id3064964" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
-movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id3064974" href="#ftn.id3064974" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
-— a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair.</span>”</span> By
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
+basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2701522" href="#ftn.id2701522" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
+movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id2701532" href="#ftn.id2701532" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
+— a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
-copyrightowners,</span>”</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">take from
+copyrightowners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from
the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
-from its reproduction.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3065002" href="#ftn.id3065002" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
+from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2701561" href="#ftn.id2701561" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
its jurisdiction—leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
-refers to it as the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>”</span>—held that Sony
+refers to it as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>»</span>—held that Sony
would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
-technology—which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
-of the American film industry</span>”</span> (worse yet, it was a
+technology—which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
+of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse yet, it was a
<span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
-industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id3065025" href="#ftn.id3065025" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3065049"></a>
+industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2701584" href="#ftn.id2701584" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2701607"></a>
</p><p>
But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit. And in
copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
-technology.<sup>[<a name="id3065074" href="#ftn.id3065074" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
+technology.<sup>[<a name="id2701633" href="#ftn.id2701633" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision. But as with
the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a
pattern is clear:
-</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>
+</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">Lovbestemt lisens</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">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Videospiller/opptaker</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
-content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id3065206" href="#ftn.id3065206" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
-throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free
-ride</span>”</span> on someone else's work.
+content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2701765" href="#ftn.id2701765" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
+throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
+ride</span>»</span> on someone else's work.
</p><p>
In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
-case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span> In every
+case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> In every
case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
-the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirates.</span>”</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
+the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
stake.
</p><p>
We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
-possible uses of his work.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3065307" href="#ftn.id3065307" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
+possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2701866" href="#ftn.id2701866" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
-become a tool for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stealing</span>”</span> from artists. But neither should
+become a tool for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from artists. But neither should
the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network. Left to
develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>”</span> as John Schwartz writes in
-<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
-P2P fight.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3065367" href="#ftn.id3065367" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
-begins to talk about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">balance,</span>”</span> the copyright warriors raise a
-different argument. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
-incentives,</span>”</span> they say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
-content,</span>”</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">is our
-<span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
-`rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
-police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
-all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
-good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>”</span> insisterer
-krigerne. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
-eiendom er beskyttet.</span>”</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063410" href="#id3063410" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz writes in
+<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
+P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2701925" href="#ftn.id2701925" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk about
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
+argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and incentives,</span>»</span>
+they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our content,</span>»</span> the
+warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we
+wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait
+before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why should
+Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether
+the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
+krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
+eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2699853" href="#id2699853" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
<em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
-Risk,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063647" href="#id3063647" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
+#14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
+Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700127" href="#id2700127" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
<em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
-framework. <a class="indexterm" name="id3062867"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3063692"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063711" href="#id3063711" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
+framework. <a class="indexterm" name="id2699184"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2700159"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700185" href="#id2700185" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
-Amacom, 2002), 144–90. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In some instances … the impact of
+Amacom, 2002), 144–90. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In some instances … the impact of
piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
-pirating were not an option.</span>”</span> Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id3063728"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063976" href="#id3063976" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
+pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2700202"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700457" href="#id2700457" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064000" href="#id3064000" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
-
-See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
-Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
-Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen
-examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
-frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
-for their own products. This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
-reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
-Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
-89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id3063720"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064044" href="#id3064044" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
-Nightmare,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
-September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New
-Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Napster
-Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
-Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
-Call,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
-Naughton, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>”</span> (London)
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700488" href="#id2700488" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2700491"></a> See Clayton M. Christensen,
+<em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller
+That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
+2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies that give rise to and
+dominate a product area are frequently unable to come up with the most
+creative, paradigm-shifting uses for their own products. This job usually
+falls to outside innovators, who reassemble existing technology in inventive
+ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig,
+<em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2700194"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700537" href="#id2700537" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
+
+
+See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
+Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
+September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
+Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster
+Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
+Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
+Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
+Naughton, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London)
<em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064093" href="#id3064093" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700586" href="#id2700586" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
computers.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064121" href="#id3064121" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700615" href="#id2700615" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
-Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064251" href="#id3064251" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
+Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
+<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6. juni 2003, A1.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700744" href="#id2700744" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
-148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id3064019"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064304" href="#id3064304" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2700515"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700798" href="#id2700798" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
-cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
-music.</span>”</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
+cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
+music.</span>»</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
<em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
-Office, October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3063722" href="#id3063722" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
+Office, October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700197" href="#id2700197" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064410" href="#id3064410" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700904" href="#id2700904" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
United States (based on units shipped). In terms of sales, revenues are
down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
-on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>”</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064468" href="#id3064468" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
-Jane Black, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>”</span>, BusinessWeek online,
-13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3064484"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064505" href="#id3064505" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
+on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>»</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700962" href="#id2700962" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
+Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>»</span>, BusinessWeek online,
+13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2700978"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700998" href="#id2700998" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064554" href="#id3064554" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701048" href="#id2701048" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064595" href="#id3064595" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
-
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701101" href="#id2701101" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
-While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
-existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
-an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
-Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
-National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
-
Results,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064775" href="#id3064775" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2701110"></a> While there are not good estimates of
+the number of used record stores in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198
+used book dealers in the United States, an increase of 20 percent since
+1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion
+of the Used Book Market</em> (2002), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Used records accounted
+for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National Association of Recording
+Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey Results,</span>»</span> available at
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701328" href="#id2701328" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
York: Crown Business, 2003), 269–82.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064943" href="#id3064943" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701501" href="#id2701501" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
of America, Inc.).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064964" href="#id3064964" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701522" href="#id2701522" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064974" href="#id3064974" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701532" href="#id2701532" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065002" href="#id3065002" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701561" href="#id2701561" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
Valenti).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065025" href="#id3065025" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701584" href="#id2701584" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065074" href="#id3065074" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701633" href="#id2701633" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065206" href="#id3065206" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701765" href="#id2701765" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
<em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
-Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From
-Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
-Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id3064797"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065307" href="#id3065307" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
+Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
+Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
+Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2701350"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2701804"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701866" href="#id2701866" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
-<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
+<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065367" href="#id3065367" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2701925" href="#id2701925" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
-John Schwartz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
-Echoes Past Efforts,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22
-September 2003, C3.
-</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>
+John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
+Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
+22. september 2003, C3.
+</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>
-Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
-eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
-opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker. Markeder
-bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
-kan få.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Opphavsretts-krigerne</strong></span> har rett:
+Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan eies og selges, og loven beskytter
+mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som
+helst pris som han ønsker. Markeder bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i
+hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun kan få.
</p><p>
Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>”</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
-er en merkelig type eiendom. Selve ideen om eienrettigheter til en ide
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
+er en merkelig type eiendom. Selve Idéen om eienrettigheter til en idé
eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig. Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
-tar en picnic-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage. Jeg tar en ting,
-picnic-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det. Men hva tar jeg
-når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>ideen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
-picnic-bordet i bakhagen—ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
+tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage. Jeg tar en ting,
+piknik-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det. Men hva tar jeg
+når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>idéen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
+piknik-bordet i bakhagen—ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
</p><p>
-The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas,
-though that's an important difference. The point instead is that in the
-ordinary case—indeed, in practically every case except for a narrow
-range of exceptions—ideas released to the world are free. I don't take
-anything from you when I copy the way you dress—though I might seem
-weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a
-woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
-copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">He who receives an idea from me,
-receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
-taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3065490" href="#ftn.id3065490" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
+Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og ideer er ting, selv om det
+er en viktig forskjell. Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
+tilfelle—faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
+rekke med unntak—er ideer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
+fra deg når jeg kopierer måten du kler deg—selv om det ville se sært
+ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt sært hvis du er en kvinne.
+Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
+hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
+information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
+från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2702088" href="#ftn.id2702088" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
-diskutere her. Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min ide eller uttrykk uten
-min tilatelse: Loven gjør det flyktige til eiendom.
+diskutere her. Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min idé eller uttrykk uten
+min tilatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
</p><p>
-But how, and to what extent, and in what form—the details, in other
-words—matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
-intangible into property emerged, we need to place this
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> in its proper context.<sup>[<a name="id3065542" href="#ftn.id3065542" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
+Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form—detaljene,
+med andre ord—betyr noe. For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
+praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
+plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id2702130" href="#ftn.id2702130" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding
-part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright material
-is property</span>”</span> in context. Where did the idea come from? What are its
-limits? How does it function in practice? After these stories, the
-significance of this true statement—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright material is
-property</span>”</span>— will be a bit more clear, and its implications will
-be revealed as quite different from the implications that the copyright
-warriors would have us draw.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065490" href="#id3065490" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
+Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
+foregående del. Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span> i sammenheng. Hvor kom
+idéen fra? Hva er dens begresninger? Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
+Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
+utsagnet—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>— bli
+litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
+fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702088" href="#id2702088" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
<em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333–34.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065542" href="#id3065542" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
-
-
-As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
-intangible. A property right is simply a right that an individual has
-against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not attach
-to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to
-which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3065595"></a><p>
-William Shakespeare skrev <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i
-1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store
-skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
-til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
-kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
-vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
-som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men
-Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer.</span>”</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702130" href="#id2702130" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
+eiendomsretter immaterielle. En eiendomsrett er ganske enkelt den retten
+som et idivid har mot verden til å gjøre eller ikke gjøre visse ting som er
+eller ikke er knyttet til et fysisk objekt. Retten i seg selv er
+immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er
+materielt. Se Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
+Back Together,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003):
+373, 429 n. 241.
+</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="id2702194"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2702200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishlaw"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> skrev
+<em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
+1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han
+fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar
+fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en
+1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner
+kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av
+Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men Shakespeare er så full av
+klisjeer.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
-skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>”</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
-utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id3065638" href="#ftn.id3065638" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
-var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the
-Conger</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3065674" href="#ftn.id3065674" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
+skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
+utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2702265" href="#ftn.id2702265" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
+var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
+Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2702313" href="#ftn.id2702313" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
-en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kopier</span>”</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
+en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><p>
Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
-en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id3065721" href="#ftn.id3065721" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
+en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2702373" href="#ftn.id2702373" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt
i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
1774?
</p><p>
Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
-engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span>, var det ingen annen
+engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, var det ingen annen
lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
-at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker. <a class="indexterm" name="id3065775"></a>
+at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker. <a class="indexterm" name="id2702426"></a>
</p><p>
At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
(prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
-dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Common law</span>”</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
+dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common law</span>»</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
</p><p>
-Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>”</span>,
+Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>»</span>,
som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
-hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The
-Conger</span>”</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
+hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
+Conger</span>»</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span>.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eieren</span>”</span> av
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eieren</span>»</span> av
en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
-finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stjeler</span>”</span> Shakespeares verk?
+finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares verk?
</p><p>
Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
-opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span> ble
+opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
</p><p>
Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
-begrepet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
+begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
-reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>”</span> en rett til å bruke
+reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>»</span> en rett til å bruke
en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
verk kunne <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
fremføre, og så videre.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2702607"></a><p>
Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
-lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>”</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
+lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3065975"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2702633"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2702640"></a><p>
Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
-en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>”</span>,
-spesielt <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">enerett</span>”</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
+en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>»</span>,
+spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
-makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>”</span> vedtatt
+makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>»</span> vedtatt
for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var
parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
</p><p>
-Dermed ble <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>”</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
+Dermed ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>»</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
-om at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>”</span> prøv
-hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
-skal ha det for alltid.</span>”</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
+om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>»</span> prøv
+hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
+skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellers"></a><p>
Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
-England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Conger</span>”</span> ble av en voksende mengde
+England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span> ble av en voksende mengde
sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
-som <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>”</span>;
-de var <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
-nødvendig.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3066073" href="#ftn.id3066073" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
+som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>;
+de var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
+nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2702750" href="#ftn.id2702750" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
</p><p>
Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
-ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span>, og
+ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, og
fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
-bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id3066156" href="#ftn.id3066156" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2702834" href="#ftn.id2702834" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
-saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span>
+saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
-persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute
-of Anne</span>”</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
-betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span>
+persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute
+of Anne</span>»</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
+betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
</p><p>
Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
-jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">var utgiverne … like
-bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3064350" href="#ftn.id3064350" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
+jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne … like
+bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2700844" href="#ftn.id2700844" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
forfatterens verk ga.
</p><p>
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
-kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id3066263" href="#ftn.id3066263" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2702941" href="#ftn.id2702941" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Conger</span>”</span>. Han startet
+Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>. Han startet
in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
-standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of
-Anne</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3066290" href="#ftn.id3066290" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
-og ble <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Blant
-dem,</span>”</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
+standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
+Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2702968" href="#ftn.id2702968" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
+og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
+dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
-skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3066320" href="#ftn.id3066320" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066329"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066335"></a>
+skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2702998" href="#ftn.id2702998" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2703007"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2703013"></a>
</p><p>
Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
-flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">de
+flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
-eiendom.</span>”</span> <sup>[<a name="id3066356" href="#ftn.id3066356" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
-mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Conger</span>”</span>s, og han baserte
-sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of
-Anne</span>”</span>, var falt i det fri.
+eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id2703034" href="#ftn.id2703034" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
+mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
+sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
+Anne</span>»</span>, var falt i det fri.
</p><p>
-Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirater</span>”</span> som
+Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> som
Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
<em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2703072"></a><p>
Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
-Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>”</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
-gjennom <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
+Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
+gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id3066417" href="#ftn.id3066417" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id2703101" href="#ftn.id2703101" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
-bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span> gav
+bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> gav
bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
-mot <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirater</span>”</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
+mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
</p><p>
perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3066500"></a><p>
-Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span>s begrensninger sluttet
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2703184"></a><p>
+Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3066518"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2703202"></a><p>
Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
-Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id3066531" href="#ftn.id3066531" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2703215" href="#ftn.id2703215" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
<em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
<em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
-rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of
-Anne</span>”</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span> var blitt vedtatt,
+rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
+Anne</span>»</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> var blitt vedtatt,
skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
-mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>”</span>, falle i det
+mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, falle i det
fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
</p><p>
Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
-huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">juslorder</span>”</span>, medlemmer av
+huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av
enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
-Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">juslordene</span>”</span> hadde stemt,
+Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslordene</span>»</span> hadde stemt,
stemte resten av Overhuset.
</p><p>
hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>”</span>. Før rettssaken
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>»</span>. Før rettssaken
<em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble
Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
-frie. <a class="indexterm" name="id3066644"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066650"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066656"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066663"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3066669"></a>
+frie. <a class="indexterm" name="id2703328"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2703334"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2703341"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2703347"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2703353"></a>
</p><p>
Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
-<em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
+<em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
-prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>”</span>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
-*illuminations*.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3066703" href="#ftn.id3066703" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
+prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
+*illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2703387" href="#ftn.id2703387" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
-familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id3066232" href="#ftn.id3066232" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2702910" href="#ftn.id2702910" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>”</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>»</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
ønsker.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2703483"></a><p>
Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065638" href="#id3065638" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2703502"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2703510"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702265" href="#id2702265" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
-
-Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære
-storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ferdige
-versjoner</span>”</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2702268"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2702276"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
+litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
+versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
-Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
-Bookseller</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
+Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
+Bookseller</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
424-31.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065674" href="#id3065674" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702313" href="#id2702313" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
151–52.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3065721" href="#id3065721" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702373" href="#id2702373" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
-en <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>”</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
-and Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id3065734"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066073" href="#id3066073" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
+en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
+and Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2702385"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702750" href="#id2702750" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066156" href="#id3066156" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702834" href="#id2702834" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3064350" href="#id3064350" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2700844" href="#id2700844" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
-Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>”</span>,
+Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>»</span>,
<em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3065684"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066263" href="#id3066263" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2702324"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702941" href="#id2702941" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066290" href="#id3066290" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702968" href="#id2702968" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
-University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id3066298"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066320" href="#id3066320" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
+University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id2702976"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702998" href="#id2702998" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066356" href="#id3066356" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2703034" href="#id2703034" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066417" href="#id3066417" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2703101" href="#id2703101" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
-Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
-Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
+Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
+Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066531" href="#id3066531" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2703215" href="#id2703215" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066703" href="#id3066703" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2703387" href="#id2703387" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3066232" href="#id3066232" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2702910" href="#id2702910" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel
7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
-Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
-ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
-jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
-et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
-Gud.)
+</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>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Jon Else</strong></span> er en filmskaper. Han er mest
+kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på ypperlig vis klart å spre sin
+kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og jeg misunner den lojaliteten
+og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved et uhell møtte jeg to av
+hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres Gud.)
</p><p>
Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
*stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
-scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id3066857"></a>
+scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2703570"></a>
</p><p>
Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
-tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>”</span> eller
+tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> eller
det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
</p><p>
Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
-programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id3066921"></a>
+programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2703634"></a>
</p><p>
Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
-sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id3066941"></a>
+sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2703655"></a>
</p><p>
-Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi …
+Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi …
at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk — ihvertfall at noen [hos
-Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>”</span> Som det andre krevde
-Fox <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
+Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>»</span> Som det andre krevde
+Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
sekundene med … fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
-som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
+som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2703682"></a><p>
Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">det må være en feil her … Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
-dette.</span>”</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her … Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
+dette.</span>»</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
-meg</span>”</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>”</span>, sa
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
+meg</span>»</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>»</span>, sa
hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The
Simpson</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
-å si <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>”</span> En
-av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
-heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>”</span>
+å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>»</span> En
+av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
+heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
-Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id3067038"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3067045"></a>
+Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2703758"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2703764"></a>
</p><p>
Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
</p><p>
-For eksempel <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>”</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
+For eksempel <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>»</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
Simpson</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
-selger billetter til <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mine
-<em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>”</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
+selger billetter til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mine
+<em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>»</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
loven.
</p><p>
Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
-første tanke <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3067110" href="#ftn.id3067110" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
+første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2703830" href="#ftn.id2703830" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>”</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>— og
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>”</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>— og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
</p><p>
-Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair
-use</span>”</span>. Og her er hans svar:
+Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
+use</span>»</span>. Og her er hans svar:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
-dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rimelig
-bruk</span>”</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
+dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
+bruk</span>»</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
dette er grunnen:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>”</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>”</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
-scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span>, og å påstå
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>»</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
+scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>, og å påstå
at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2703940"></a><p>
Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
(ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School …
som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>”</span>,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>»</span>,
uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
+Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
-I teorien betyr <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> at du ikke trenger
+I teorien betyr <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> at du ikke trenger
tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
-tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> helt
+tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> helt
annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
ikke fulgt opp.
</p><p>
Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
_all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3067110" href="#id3067110" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2703830" href="#id2703830" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
-Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair
-use</span>”</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
-A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
-Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>”</span> (utkast arkivert hos
+Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
+use</span>»</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
+A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
+Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>»</span> (utkast arkivert hos
forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel
8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3067337"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3067343"></a><p>
-In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an
-innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
-digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
-began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
-anticipation of the power of networks.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3067358"></a><p>
+</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="id2704065"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2704084"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>In 1993</strong></span>, Alex Alben was a lawyer working
+at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an innovative company founded by Microsoft
+cofounder Paul Allen to develop digital entertainment. Long before the
+Internet became popular, Starwave began investing in new technology for
+delivering entertainment in anticipation of the power of networks.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
xartistsretrospective"></a><p>
Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
emerging market for CD-ROM technology—not to distribute film, but to
do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult. In 1993, he
work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
and interviews with figures important to his career.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067366"></a><p>
+</p><p>
At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
permission for that content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067401"></a><p>
-Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Our
+</p><p>
+Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Our
goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
-films,</span>”</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No
-one had ever really done this before,</span>”</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No one
+films,</span>»</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No
+one had ever really done this before,</span>»</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No one
had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
-career.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067426"></a><p>
+career.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067440"></a><p>
-Alben replied, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
-we want to use in these film clips.</span>”</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Great! Go for
-it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3067456" href="#ftn.id3067456" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
+we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go for
+it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2704187" href="#ftn.id2704187" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips. We made some
artistic decisions about what film clips to include—of course we were
-going to use the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Make my day</span>”</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
+going to use the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my day</span>»</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission. And then you
have to decide what you are going to pay him.
crashing through the glass—is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
just started calling people.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3067523"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2704260"></a><p>
Some actors were glad to help—Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared. Others were
-dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
-you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>”</span> And
-they would say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
-$1,200.</span>”</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
+dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
+you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>»</span> And
+they would say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
+$1,200.</span>»</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
</p><p>
-It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">and even then we
-weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3067570"></a><p>
+It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">and even then we
+weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
-and said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
+and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
-actors.</span>”</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
-constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
-directors, … this many musicians,</span>”</span> and we just went at it very
+actors.</span>»</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
+constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
+directors, … this many musicians,</span>»</span> and we just went at it very
systematically and cleared the rights.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
and it sold very well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3067611"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3067617"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2704342"></a><p>
But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
-efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">There is
+efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
-all.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3067633" href="#ftn.id3067633" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
+all.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2704357" href="#ftn.id2704357" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
</p><p>
-For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">very few … have the time and
-resources, and the will to do this,</span>”</span> and thus, very few such works
+For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">very few … have the time and
+resources, and the will to do this,</span>»</span> and thus, very few such works
would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
-and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Oh,
+and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh,
I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
-money,</span>”</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
+money,</span>»</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
together.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3067735"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><p>
Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
-because the costs of clearing the rights are so high? These costs are the
-burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat for a moment, and
-get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of these rights, and
-the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost to negotiate
-them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and imagine the
-pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from Los Angeles
-to San Francisco.) These rights might well have once made sense; but as
-circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a
-well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and
-ask, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
+because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2704454"></a><p>
+These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat
+for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of
+these rights, and the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost
+to negotiate them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and
+imagine the pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from
+Los Angeles to San Francisco.) These rights might well have once made
+sense; but as circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least,
+a well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights
+and ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2704479"></a><p>
I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
<em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3067790"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2704514"></a><p>
Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
-tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
-brutt i dette rommet?</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3067816"></a><p>
+tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
+brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2704540"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2704546"></a><p>
For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law. Of course,
enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
couldn't easily do them legally.
</p><p>
-We live in a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>”</span> culture enabled by
+We live in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> culture enabled by
technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created—in a
second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
can have it planted in your presentation.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2704575"></a><p>
+
But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
-and music. <a class="indexterm" name="id3067862"></a>
+and music.
</p><p>
All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
-to be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">legal,</span>”</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
+to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal,</span>»</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
rules, it doesn't get released.
To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
-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,
+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,
the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
-example, that says <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
+example, that says <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
-owner.</span>”</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
+owner.</span>»</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
</p><p>
would anyone have to oppose it?
</p><p>
-In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
-the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
-Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
-together to form a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>”</span> Under the
-agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
-picture hits and classics, write new storylines and—with the use of
-stateof-the-art digital technology—insert Myers and other actors into
-the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>”</span>
+<span class="strong"><strong>In February 2003</strong></span>, DreamWorks studios
+announced an agreement with Mike Myers, the comic genius of
+<em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin Powers. According to
+the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work together to form a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>»</span> Under the agreement, DreamWorks
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion picture hits and classics,
+write new storylines and—with the use of stateof-the-art digital
+technology—insert Myers and other actors into the film, thereby
+creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-The announcement called this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>”</span> As Myers
-explained, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
+The announcement called this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>»</span> As Myers
+explained, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
-take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>”</span> Steven Spielberg is
-quoted as saying, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
-new audiences, it is Mike.</span>”</span>
+take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg is
+quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
+new audiences, it is Mike.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
famous—and presumably rich.
</p><p>
This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
-continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair
-use.</span>”</span> Much of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sampling</span>”</span> should be considered
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use.</span>”</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
+continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
+use.</span>»</span> Much of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> should be considered
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
content are astronomically high. These costs mirror the costs with fair
to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
lawyers—again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3067456" href="#id3067456" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2704187" href="#id2704187" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
publicity—rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
-of his image. But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>”</span>
-creativity, as this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id3067468"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3067633" href="#id3067633" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
+of his image. But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
+creativity, as this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2704199"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2704214"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2704357" href="#id2704357" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
<em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
-In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bots</span>”</span>—computer codes designed
-to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">spider,</span>”</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
-content—began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
-Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
-basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
-the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
-months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
+</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><a class="indexterm" name="id2704759"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>In April 1996</strong></span>, millions of
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>—computer codes designed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span>
+or automatically search the Internet and copy content—began running
+across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information
+onto a small set of computers located in a basement in San Francisco's
+Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of the Internet, they started
+again. Over and over again, once every two months, these bits of code took
+copies of the Internet and stored them.
</p><p>
By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
-technology called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>”</span> you could enter a Web
+technology called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>»</span> you could enter a Web
page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
pages changed.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated. In
the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library—constantly
updated, without any reliable memory.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2704834"></a><p>
Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
-forget.<sup>[<a name="id3068065" href="#ftn.id3068065" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
-reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
-hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
-water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
-newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
-exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
-and remember—not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
-something close to the truth.
+forget.<sup>[<a name="id2704858" href="#ftn.id2704858" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2704891"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can go
+back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted
+to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts
+in 1965, or to Bull Connor's water cannon in 1963, you could go to your
+public library and look at the newspapers. Those papers probably exist on
+microfiche. If you're lucky, they exist in paper, too. Either way, you are
+free, using a library, to go back and remember—not just what it is
+convenient to remember, but remember something close to the truth.
</p><p>
It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
was growing at about a billion pages a month.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2704936"></a><p>
The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
-history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
-of material</span>”</span>—and was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
-of Congress.</span>”</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
+history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
+of material</span>»</span>—and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
+of Congress.</span>»</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
evening by Vanderbilt University—thanks to a specific exemption in the
copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
-very low fee. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
-unavailable,</span>”</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
+very low fee. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
+unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
-student?</span>”</span> As Kahle put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
3068192"></a><p>
+student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
2705006"></a><p>
Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
deposits—for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
-more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>”</span> Thus, when
+more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>»</span> Thus, when
the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
copy exists—if it exists at all—in the library archive of the
-film company.<sup>[<a name="id3068240" href="#ftn.id3068240" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
+film company.<sup>[<a name="id2705054" href="#ftn.id2705054" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
-so there was no fear of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">theft.</span>”</span> But as technology enabled
+so there was no fear of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft.</span>»</span> But as technology enabled
capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>”</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>»</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
them. The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
to anyone who would look.
world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
of September 11 available free on-line. Anyone could see how news reports
from around the world covered the events of that day.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2705119"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2705125"></a><p>
Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
-archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>”</span>
+archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
(meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
copies to enable other films to be made. Either way, the archive enabled
access to this important part of our culture. Want to see a copy of the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>”</span> film that instructed children how to save
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>»</span> film that instructed children how to save
themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
-download the film in a few minutes—for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id3068275"></a>
+download the film in a few minutes—for free.
</p><p>
Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
</p><p>
For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
-creative property goes through different <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lives.</span>”</span> In its first
+creative property goes through different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> In its first
life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
even if that information is no longer sold.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2705212"></a><p>
The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
-quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id3068390" href="#ftn.id3068390" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
+quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2705228" href="#ftn.id2705228" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
Beyond that, culture disappears.
</p><p>
-For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
-would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
-television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
-high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
-of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
-economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
-ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
+<span class="strong"><strong>For most of</strong></span> the twentieth century, it was
+economics that made this so. It would have been insanely expensive to
+collect and make accessible all television and film and music: The cost of
+analog copies is extraordinarily high. So even though the law in principle
+would have restricted the ability of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture
+generally, the real restriction was economics. The market made it impossibly
+difficult to do anything about this ephemeral culture; the law had little
+practical effect.
</p><p>
Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
describes,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2705325"></a><p>
It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
… and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
</p><p>
Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
-these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">archives,</span>”</span> as warm as the idea of a
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">library</span>”</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">content</span>”</span> that is
-collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span>
+these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">archives,</span>»</span> as warm as the idea of a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">library</span>»</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is
+collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span>
And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
exercise.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068065" href="#id3068065" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
-
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2705400"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2704858" href="#id2704858" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
-The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
-changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003, press release
-stated, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>”</span> That was later
-changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have
-Ended.</span>”</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068240" href="#id3068240" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2704862"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2704870"></a> The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the
+White House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
+press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span>
+That was later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in
+Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2705054" href="#id2705054" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
-Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
-the Library of Congress,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
+Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
+the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2–3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
<em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 1992), 36.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068390" href="#id3068390" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Dave Barns, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
-Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake
-1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print
-in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
-Digital Networks,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
-44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
-Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
-America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
-administration—literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
-on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
-the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
-established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
-Washington. <a class="indexterm" name="id3068506"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068566"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2705228" href="#id2705228" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2705231"></a> Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career
+in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by
+Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5
+September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946,
+only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First
+Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
+College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
+</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><a class="indexterm" name="id2705423"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2705429"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> has been the president of
+the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came to
+Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's administration—literally. The
+famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in on Air Force One after the
+assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his
+almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as
+perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in Washington.
</p><p>
The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
-Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. <a class="indexterm" name="id3068585"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068591"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3068597"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068604"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068610"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068616"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3068622"></a>
+Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. <a class="indexterm" name="id2705464"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2705471"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2705477"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2705483"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2705490"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2705496"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2705502"></a>
</p><p>
there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property.</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue. That is the
question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
-debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id3068681" href="#ftn.id3068681" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
+debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2705561" href="#ftn.id2705561" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">central theme</span>”</span> to which <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">reasonable men and
-women</span>”</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">central theme</span>»</span> to which <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reasonable men and
+women</span>»</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
-owners in the nation.</span>”</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
+owners in the nation.</span>»</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
</p><p>
This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
-scope of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property.</span>”</span> His views have
+scope of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> His views have
<span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
tradition, at least in Washington.
</p><p>
-While <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> is certainly <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span>
+While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
-understand,<sup>[<a name="id3068750" href="#ftn.id3068750" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
-nor should it be, that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>”</span> have been
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
-property owners.</span>”</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
+understand,<sup>[<a name="id2705630" href="#ftn.id2705630" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
+nor should it be, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
+property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
</p><p>
does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.) But what's good for the MPAA is
not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
-threaten the old. To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
-wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
-Constitution itself.
+threaten the old.
</p><p>
-The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> Indeed, so
+<span class="strong"><strong>To get</strong></span> just a hint that there is
+something fundamentally wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further
+than the United States Constitution itself.
+</p><p>
+The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> Indeed, so
strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
important requirement. If the government takes your property—if it
condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm—it is
-required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>”</span> to pay
-you <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">just compensation</span>”</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
+required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>»</span> to pay
+you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
<span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
government pays for the privilege.
</p><p>
Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
-calls <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property.</span>”</span> In the clause granting Congress the
-power to create <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property,</span>”</span> the Constitution
-<span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited time,</span>”</span>
+calls <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> In the clause granting Congress the
+power to create <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> the Constitution
+<span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited time,</span>»</span>
Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">takes</span>”</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
-Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">just
-compensation</span>”</span> for this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking.</span>”</span> Instead, the same
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">takes</span>»</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
+Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just
+compensation</span>»</span> for this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking.</span>»</span> Instead, the same
Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
-your <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> right without any compensation at all.
+your <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> right without any compensation at all.
</p><p>
The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
creative property there must be a public domain?
</p><p>
To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
-these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> rights, and the control that they
+these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
enabled. Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
-by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id3068638"></a>
-</p><p>
+by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id2705518"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2705918"></a><p>
Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2705938"></a><p>
The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms—it is
it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2705947"></a><p>
Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">architecture</span>”</span>—the physical world as one finds
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>—the physical world as one finds
it—is a constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your
ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
-by <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">architecture.</span>”</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
+by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture.</span>»</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
enforces this constraint.
comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
regulator (whether controlling or freeing) must consider how these four in
particular interact.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><p>
-So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">freedom</span>”</span> to drive a car at a
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2706031"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2706037"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2706043"></a><p>
+So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a
high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
-in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id3069136" href="#ftn.id3069136" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
+in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2706078" href="#ftn.id2706078" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
particular modality. Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
more strict—a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
limit, for example—so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
driving.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3069159"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2706102"></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="id2706138"></a><p>
These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
-modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id3069203" href="#ftn.id3069203" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
+modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2706153" href="#ftn.id2706153" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
</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>
The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
sense.
</p><p>
Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</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="id2706271"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2706278"></a><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
results.
</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>
Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
-warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">White Paper</span>”</span> prepared by the Commerce
+warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
(3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2706355"></a><p>
This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to
preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3069417"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3069422"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2706394"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2706399"></a><p>
But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
government should intervene to support that old way of doing
business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
-cameras.<sup>[<a name="id3069438" href="#ftn.id3069438" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
+cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2706415" href="#ftn.id2706415" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
-weakened the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stickiness</span>”</span> of television advertising (if a
+weakened the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stickiness</span>»</span> of television advertising (if a
boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2706463"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2706469"></a><p>
The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no. In a free
society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
-patents, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
-competitors.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3069500" href="#ftn.id3069500" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
+patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
+competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2706489" href="#ftn.id2706489" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3069520"></a>
</p><p>
Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
-Constitution: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law … abridging the
-freedom of speech.</span>”</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
-would <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">abridge</span>”</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask—
+Constitution: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law … abridging the
+freedom of speech.</span>»</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
+would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask—
carefully—whether such regulation is justified.
</p><p>
My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">justified.</span>”</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">justified.</span>»</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
of the changes the content industry wants.
Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
-increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id3069606"></a>
+increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id2706589"></a>
</p><p>
No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3069624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2706607"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2706613"></a><p>
But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
-reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed. <a class="indexterm" name="id3069640"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3069646"></a>
+reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
</p><p>
No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
solve.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2706645"></a><p>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
-appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>”</span> for
-culture.<sup>[<a name="id3069678" href="#ftn.id3069678" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
+appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
+culture.<sup>[<a name="id2706661" href="#ftn.id2706661" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
-that music should be given away <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">for free.</span>”</span> The point is that
+that music should be given away <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that
some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
</p><p>
In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3069728"></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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2706711"></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>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
-English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative
-property</span>”</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
+English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
+property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
</p><p>
-The power to establish <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> rights is granted to
+The power to establish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights is granted to
Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
</p><p>
Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and Discoveries. We can call this the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>”</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
-does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property
-rights.</span>”</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>»</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
+does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property
+rights.</span>»</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
purpose of rewarding authors.
</p><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
-chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
+chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
-reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to
-Authors</span>”</span> only.
+reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to
+Authors</span>»</span> only.
</p><p>
The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
</p><p>
I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
-to put our <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> in context: We need to see how it has
+to put our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has
changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
</p><p>
concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
</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>
Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
-</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>
+</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>
La meg forklare hvordan.
the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
-rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id3069909" href="#ftn.id3069909" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
+rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2706892" href="#ftn.id2706892" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
opphavsrettsregimet. Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
-14 år.<sup>[<a name="id3069977" href="#ftn.id3069977" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
+14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2706960" href="#ftn.id2706960" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
-work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id3070044" href="#ftn.id3070044" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2707027" href="#ftn.id2707027" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2707057"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2707069"></a><p>
Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
-print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id3070079" href="#ftn.id3070079" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
+print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2707085" href="#ftn.id2707085" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
</p><p>
The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
created after 1978, there was only one copyright term—the maximum
-term. For <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">natural</span>”</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
+term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited,</span>”</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
</p><p>
The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
average term of copyright is now the maximum term. In thirty years, then,
-the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id3070181" href="#ftn.id3070181" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
+the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2707194" href="#ftn.id2707194" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
</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>
-The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">scope</span>”</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
+The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
the law. The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
</p><p>
-In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">maps,
-charts, and books.</span>”</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
+In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
+charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
-author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">publish</span>”</span> copyrighted works. That
+author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> copyrighted works. That
means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
-extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>”</span> It would not,
+extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> It would not,
therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
(such as a drama based on a published book).
practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">publish</span>”</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
-over any <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies</span>”</span> of that work. And most significant for our
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
+over any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> of that work. And most significant for our
purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
-or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">derivative work</span>”</span> that
+or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative work</span>»</span> that
might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
author.
</p><p>
-All of these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">formalities</span>”</span> were abolished in the American
+All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American
system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
-United States.<sup>[<a name="id3070334" href="#ftn.id3070334" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
+United States.<sup>[<a name="id2707359" href="#ftn.id2707359" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
market in the United States—publishers.
</p><p>
</p><p>
That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
-that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">derivative
-rights.</span>”</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
+that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative
+rights.</span>»</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
all—they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
-protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id3070421" href="#ftn.id3070421" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
+protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2707446" href="#ftn.id2707446" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
</p><p>
Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
-book.<sup>[<a name="id3070470" href="#ftn.id3070470" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
+book.<sup>[<a name="id2707495" href="#ftn.id2707495" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
creative work are treated the same.
</p><p>
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>”</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>»</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
</p><p>
These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
-and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id3070536" href="#ftn.id3070536" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
+and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2707561" href="#ftn.id2707561" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copies.</span>”</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
<span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
-argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span>
-deserves the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">same rights</span>”</span> as all other property, it is the
+argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span>
+deserves the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">same rights</span>»</span> as all other property, it is the
<span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
-copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id3070614" href="#ftn.id3070614" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
+copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2707640" href="#ftn.id2707640" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
law.
</p><p>
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
circle.
-</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>
+</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"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksusetypes"></a><p>
Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
diagram on next page).
</p><p>
Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
-forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rimelig
-bruk</span>”</span>.
+forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
+bruk</span>»</span>.
</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
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>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
-over such <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair uses</span>”</span> for public policy (and possibly First
+over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span> for public policy (and possibly First
Amendment) reasons.
-</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
+</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
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>
In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
-are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair</span>”</span> regardless of the copyright
+are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
owner's views.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2707825"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2707833"></a><p>
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use of a
-copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id3070545" href="#ftn.id3070545" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
+copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2707570" href="#ftn.id2707570" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
use—reading— could be regulated by copyright law because none of
those uses produced a copy.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2707886"></a><p>
But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
<span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
-machine. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>”</span> and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>”</span>
+machine. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span>
become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification. However troubling the
expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
</p><p>
Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
-on category 3 (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span>) that fair use never before had to
+on category 3 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>) that fair use never before had to
bear. If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
fair use are not enough.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
-business of making <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">trailer</span>”</span> advertisements for movies
+business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies
available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2708019"></a><p>
The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews. The
-idea was to expand their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>”</span> technique by
-giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">browsing.</span>”</span>
+idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span> technique by
+giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span>
Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
before you bought it.
content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately. Video Pipeline thought it
-was within their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> rights to distribute the clips as
+was within their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as
they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
rights were in fact their rights.
</p><p>
Disney countersued—for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
-predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">willfully
-infringed</span>”</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
+predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
+infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
Disney's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3071015"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2708090"></a><p>
Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>”</span> would free the seller to use the video as
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>»</span> would free the seller to use the video as
he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2708118"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2708124"></a><p>
No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3071129"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2708217"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
Brothers) og Warner Brothers. Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
<em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte. De skrev et
ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
-juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id3071176" href="#ftn.id3071176" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
+juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2708264" href="#ftn.id2708264" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt. De advarte
-Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
-det</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3071204" href="#ftn.id3071204" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
+Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
+det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2708291" href="#ftn.id2708291" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><p>
On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3071262"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3071270"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2708365"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2708373"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form. En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
computer.
</p><p>
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
-Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id3071394"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3071401"></a>
-</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>
+Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id2708497"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2708504"></a>
+</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>
According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
</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>
Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
-</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>
+</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>
Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
boken!
</p><p>
Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permissions</span>”</span>— as if the publisher has the power to
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span>— as if the publisher has the power to
control how you use these works. For works under copyright, the copyright
owner certainly does have the power—up to the limits of the copyright
law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
-power.<sup>[<a name="id3071485" href="#ftn.id3071485" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
+power.<sup>[<a name="id2708588" href="#ftn.id2708588" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
<em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
</p><p>
The control comes instead from the code—from the technology within
-which the e-book <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lives.</span>”</span> Though the e-book says that these are
-permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permissions</span>”</span> that most
-of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permission</span>”</span> to stay out
+which the e-book <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> Though the e-book says that these are
+permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> that most
+of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission</span>»</span> to stay out
till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
-to type <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>”</span> erased <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Brothers</span>”</span> from
-the sentence. <a class="indexterm" name="id3071565"></a>
+to type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from
+the sentence. <a class="indexterm" name="id2708661"></a>
</p><p>
This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
<span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
Wonderland</em>. This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3071615"></a>
-</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>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2708711"></a>
+</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>
Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permissions</span>”</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">read
-aloud</span>”</span>!
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read
+aloud</span>»</span>!
</p><p>
The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission. For the
text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control. That incentive
is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3071690"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2708786"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2708794"></a><p>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
of mine that makes the same point.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
-Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>”</span> The Aibo
+Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>»</span> The Aibo
learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
</p><p>
on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Teach</span>”</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
computers. You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
differently. So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">dog</span>”</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
-</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2708888"></a><p>
If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
<em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
-run, or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">drive,</span>”</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
+run, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drive,</span>»</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
</p><p>
jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
built.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3071828"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3071837"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3071845"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2708939"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2708947"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2708955"></a><p>
I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
knew very well.
</p><p>
-But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3071890" href="#ftn.id3071890" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
+But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2709000" href="#ftn.id2709000" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
paper to be submitted at conference. The paper was intended to describe the
weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
-standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">this music cannot
-be copied,</span>”</span> and have a computer respect that command. The technology
-was to be part of a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">trusted system</span>”</span> of control that would get
+standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">this music cannot
+be copied,</span>»</span> and have a computer respect that command. The technology
+was to be part of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trusted system</span>»</span> of control that would get
content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
</p><p>
When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition. In
Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3072074"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072082"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072090"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2709184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709200"></a><p>
And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
RIAA lawyer that read:
Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
-Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">DMCA</span>”</span>).
+Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3072171"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072177"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072183"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2709281"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709287"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709294"></a><p>
Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
distributing a circumvention technology. Thus, even though he was not
himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
others to infringe others' copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3072221"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2709331"></a><p>
The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>”</span> for example, had testified
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> for example, had testified
in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
-Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="id3072243"></a>
+Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="id2709353"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>”</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>”</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>”</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
become much more active in the programming of their family's television
life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
-whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You are an important
-person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>”</span> Maybe
+whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You are an important
+person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe
I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
-important.<sup>[<a name="id3072282" href="#ftn.id3072282" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
+important.<sup>[<a name="id2709393" href="#ftn.id2709393" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
responsible.
</p><p>
This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3072323"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2709434"></a>
</p><p>
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
</p><p>
copyrighted material—a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
use—a good end.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxhandguns"></a><p>
A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
-</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>
+</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"><a class="indexterm" name="id2709492"></a><p>
The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
-guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do. <a class="indexterm" name="id3072382"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3072389"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072395"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072402"></a><p>
+guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2709512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709526"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709533"></a><p>
The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
-continue it.<sup>[<a name="id3072466" href="#ftn.id3072466" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
+continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2709597" href="#ftn.id2709597" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
wished without fear of legal control.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2709624"></a><p>
But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
</p><p>
Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
-sources.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3072580" href="#ftn.id3072580" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
+sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2709717" href="#ftn.id2709717" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
-Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id3072592" href="#ftn.id3072592" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
+Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2709729" href="#ftn.id2709729" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
-nationwide.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3072610" href="#ftn.id3072610" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072622"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072629"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3072635"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072641"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072648"></a>
+nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2709747" href="#ftn.id2709747" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2709760"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2709766"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2709772"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2709778"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2709785"></a>
</p><p>
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
</p><p>
Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
-article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id3072679"></a>
+article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2709817"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
integration. They supply content—Fox movies … Fox TV shows
distribution system through which the content reaches the
customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
-system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3072704" href="#ftn.id3072704" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
+system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2709841" href="#ftn.id2709841" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
</p><p>
Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
er viktig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3072786"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3072799"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2709923"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709930"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2709936"></a><p>
I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
Family</em>. Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten. Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
andre. Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
-nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id3072831" href="#ftn.id3072831" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
+nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2709968" href="#ftn.id2709968" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
the vast majority of prime time television—75 percent of it—was
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">independent</span>”</span> of the networks.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independent</span>»</span> of the networks.
</p><p>
In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence. After
that change, the networks quickly changed the balance. In 1985, there were
twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
-independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
+independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
-quintupled to 77 percent.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
+quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
-one.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3072894" href="#ftn.id3072894" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
-prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the
+one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2710031" href="#ftn.id2710031" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
+prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the
ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
-studios decreased 63%.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3072922" href="#ftn.id3072922" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3072929"></a><p>
+studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2710059" href="#ftn.id2710059" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2710066"></a><p>
Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
</p><p>
Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
snevret inn fra få til stadig færre. Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3072953"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3072959"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2710090"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2710096"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
-you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id3072978" href="#ftn.id3072978" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
+you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2710115" href="#ftn.id2710115" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous. Increasingly
consequence—not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
the environment for a democracy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3073005"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2710142"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>”</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
their core business. The same analysis could help explain why large,
traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
-trends.<sup>[<a name="id3073036" href="#ftn.id3073036" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
+trends.<sup>[<a name="id2710173" href="#ftn.id2710173" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
-there will be far too little sprinting. <a class="indexterm" name="id3073067"></a>
+there will be far too little sprinting. <a class="indexterm" name="id2710204"></a>
</p><p>
I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
-media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>”</span> The campaign
+media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign
produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
heard then?
</p><p>
No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">controversial</span>”</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
crucial debate the opportunity to present its case. And the courts will
-defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id3073188" href="#ftn.id3073188" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
+defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2710326" href="#ftn.id2710326" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived in a
media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3073101"></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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2710238"></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>
There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
-warriors that the government should <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>”</span> In
+warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span> In
the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
</p><p>
-But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> has
+But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> has
changed— when we recognize how it might now interact with both
technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
to cultivate our culture is dramatically different—the claim begins to
seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
-expanded <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
+expanded <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
</p><p>
massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
-known.<sup>[<a name="id3073432" href="#ftn.id3073432" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
+known.<sup>[<a name="id2710570" href="#ftn.id2710570" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
+<span class="strong"><strong>This has been</strong></span> a long chapter. Its point
+can now be briefly stated.
</p><p>
At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
-chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
-<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
+chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
+<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
transformation. More commercial transformative work would be created if
derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
</p><p>
The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
-copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property,</span>”</span> and of course, as with any
+copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
-rights<sup>[<a name="id3073788" href="#ftn.id3073788" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>) has been crafted to balance
+rights<sup>[<a name="id2710931" href="#ftn.id2710931" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>) has been crafted to balance
the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
been struck in light of new technologies. And for almost half of our
-tradition, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
+tradition, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2710971"></a><p>
We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
-the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> The very
-birth of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> as a statutory right recognized those
+the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
+birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those
limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
-story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> is animated by
+story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> is animated by
a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
with a lawyer.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068681" href="#id3068681" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2705561" href="#id2705561" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R. 4794,
Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3068750" href="#id3068750" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2705630" href="#id2705630" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
-Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
+Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
-object. Thus, my <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property right</span>”</span> to my car gives me the right
+object. Thus, my <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property right</span>»</span> to my car gives me the right
to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
-best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> to
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>”</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
+best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069136" href="#id3069136" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2706078" href="#id2706078" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
more timidly expressed. See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95;
-Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
+Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069203" href="#id3069203" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2706153" href="#id2706153" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
-Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">liberty.</span>”</span> They
+Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They
object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19. John
R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
-imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>”</span> in
+imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>»</span> in
Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
Code</em>, section 12101 (2000). Each of these interventions to
change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
-the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. <a class="indexterm" name="id3069257"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3069266"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069438" href="#id3069438" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
+the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. <a class="indexterm" name="id2706207"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2706216"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2706222"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2706229"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2706415" href="#id2706415" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
-See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
-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
+See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
+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
analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>”</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#24</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069500" href="#id3069500" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2706489" href="#id2706489" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
1994), 170–71.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069678" href="#id3069678" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2706661" href="#id2706661" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
-Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
-Environmentalism for the Net?</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
+Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
+Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069909" href="#id3069909" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2706892" href="#id2706892" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
-vol. 1, 485–86: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
+vol. 1, 485–86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
-or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>”</span>
-(emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="id3069927"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3069977" href="#id3069977" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
+or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
+(emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2706910"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2706960" href="#id2706960" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
-years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070044" href="#id3070044" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
+years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707027" href="#id2707027" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
-Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>”</span>
+Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
-498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070079" href="#id3070079" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
+498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707085" href="#id2707085" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070181" href="#id3070181" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707194" href="#id2707194" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>”</span> loc. cit.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070334" href="#id3070334" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707359" href="#id2707359" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
-See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
-Creation of American Literature,</span>”</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
+See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
+Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
1987).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070421" href="#id3070421" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707446" href="#id2707446" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
-Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
-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="id3070450"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070470" href="#id3070470" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
+Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
+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="id2707476"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707495" href="#id2707495" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
-First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies</span>”</span> and derivative
-works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
-Constitutionality,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
-(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id3070487"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070536" href="#id3070536" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
+First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and derivative
+works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
+Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
+(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id2707513"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707561" href="#id2707561" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
-regulates more than <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies</span>”</span>—a public performance of a
+regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>—a public performance of a
copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
-106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy</span>”</span>;
+106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span>;
17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
-presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies;</span>”</span>
+presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span>
17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
is a copy, there is a right.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070614" href="#id3070614" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707640" href="#id2707640" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3070545" href="#id3070545" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2707570" href="#id2707570" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
-I don't mean <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">nature</span>”</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
+I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
number of copies remain.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3071176" href="#id3071176" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2708264" href="#id2708264" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
-Se David Lange, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
+Se David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172–73.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3071204" href="#id3071204" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2708291" href="#id2708291" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id3071191"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3071485" href="#id3071485" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
+Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2708278"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2708588" href="#id2708588" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3071890" href="#id3071890" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2709000" href="#id2709000" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
-See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
-Science,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
-I. Koerner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
-New Tricks,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>”</span>
+See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
+Science,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
+I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
+New Tricks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
-December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
-Concerns,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>”</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
-Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
+December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
+Concerns,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
+Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
<em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
-Legal Case,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3071946"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072282" href="#id3072282" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
+Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2709056"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2709393" href="#id2709393" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
-(New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71. <a class="indexterm" name="id3071211"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072466" href="#id3072466" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
+(New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71. <a class="indexterm" name="id2708299"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2709597" href="#id2709597" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
-For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Legal
-Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>”</span>
+For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
+Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
(1997): 651.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072580" href="#id3072580" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2709717" href="#id2709717" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003) (statement
-of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072592" href="#id3072592" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
+of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2709729" href="#id2709729" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
-Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
-Slide,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072610" href="#id3072610" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
+Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
+Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2709747" href="#id2709747" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
-Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>”</span>
+Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072704" href="#id3072704" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2709841" href="#id2709841" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
-James Fallows, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
-Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id3072723"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072831" href="#id3072831" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
+James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
+Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2709860"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2709968" href="#id2709968" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
-Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>”</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
-Center Forum, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>”</span>
+Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
+Center Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span>
St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072894" href="#id3072894" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2710031" href="#id2710031" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072922" href="#id3072922" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2710059" href="#id2710059" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3072978" href="#id3072978" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2710115" href="#id2710115" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>”</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#31</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073036" href="#id3073036" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2710173" href="#id2710173" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
-Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
-and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
+Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
+and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235–51. For a more recent study, see
Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to
Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
-2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073188" href="#id3073188" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
+2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2710326" href="#id2710326" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
-Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">against [their]
-policy.</span>”</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
+Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against [their]
+policy.</span>»</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
-example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
-with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
+example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
+with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4. Outside of election-related air time
there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
-the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
+the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
-Radio,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
+Radio,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
(D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
-Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
-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
-the criticism was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073252"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073260"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3073267"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073273"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073279"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073285"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3073292"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073432" href="#id3073432" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
+Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
+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
+the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2710390"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2710398"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2710404"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2710411"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2710417"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2710423"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2710430"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2710570" href="#id2710570" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
-Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fire
-kapitulasjoner</span>”</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
-Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. <a class="indexterm" name="id3073224"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073788" href="#id3073788" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
+Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire
+kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
+Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. <a class="indexterm" name="id2710362"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2710931" href="#id2710931" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
-and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
-Property,</span>”</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
+and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
+Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
-1980). <a class="indexterm" name="id3073803"></a>
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Del III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
-In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
-trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
-the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id3073953" href="#ftn.id3073953" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
-extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
-climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
-excellent fruit.</span>”</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
-as an opportunity. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>”</span> he tells
-himself, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>”</span> So he resolves to live
-with the villagers to explore life as a king.
+1980). <a class="indexterm" name="id2710947"></a>
+</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: Fantasifoster"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> short story by
+H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an ice
+slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in the Peruvian
+Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2711098" href="#ftn.id2711098" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is extraordinarily
+beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich
+brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But
+the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In
+the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man
+is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life
+as a king.
</p><p>
Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">blind.</span>”</span> They don't have the word
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind.</span>»</span> They don't have the word
<em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick. Indeed, as they
increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
-becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
+becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
-blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>”</span>
+blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>»</span>
</p><p>
The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
-a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
-of creation,</span>”</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
-what he sees <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
+a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
+of creation,</span>»</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
+what he sees <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
-white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">She
-did not believe,</span>”</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">she could only half
-understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
-When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mysteriously
-delighted</span>”</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You see,
-my dear,</span>”</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
-delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>”</span> They take Nunez to the
+white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She
+did not believe,</span>»</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">she could only half
+understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mysteriously
+delighted</span>»</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You see,
+my dear,</span>»</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
+delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>»</span> They take Nunez to the
village doctor.
</p><p>
-After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">His brain
-is affected,</span>”</span> he reports.
+After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">His brain
+is affected,</span>»</span> he reports.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>”</span> the father asks. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Those queer things
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>»</span> the father asks. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Those queer things
that are called the eyes … are diseased … in such a way as to
-affect his brain.</span>”</span>
+affect his brain.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-The doctor continues: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
+The doctor continues: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
easy surgical operation—namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
-eyes].</span>”</span>
+eyes].</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>”</span> says the father to the doctor. They
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They
inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
(You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
-believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.) It
-sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
-fusion produces a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">chimera.</span>”</span> A chimera is a single creature
-with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
-from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
-mysteries. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
-not the person whose blood was at the scene. …</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3074109"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3074116"></a><p>
+believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>It sometimes</strong></span> happens that the eggs of
+twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature with two sets of
+DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of
+the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
+mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
+not the person whose blood was at the scene. …</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2711260"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2711269"></a><p>
Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible. A
single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
-sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">person</span>”</span> should
+sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> should
reflect this reality.
</p><p>
The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
-enough, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>”</span> the more I think we're dealing
-with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What is
-p2p file sharing?</span>”</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
-wrong. One side says, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
+enough, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>»</span> the more I think we're dealing
+with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What is
+p2p file sharing?</span>»</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
+wrong. One side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
others' records—the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
-years without any question at all.</span>”</span> That's true, at least in
+years without any question at all.</span>»</span> That's true, at least in
part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">friends</span>”</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
-friends</span>”</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
-friend is what <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>”</span> we have not
-always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
-friends.</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
+friends</span>»</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
+friend is what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>»</span> we have not
+always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
+friends.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
+Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
-it,</span>”</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
+it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3074199"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2711352"></a>
</p><p>
file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
-been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id3074249" href="#ftn.id3074249" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
+been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2711393" href="#ftn.id2711393" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3074347"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2711499"></a><p>
Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
will be lost.
</p><p>
-I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">steal</span>”</span>
+I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
-everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id3074435" href="#ftn.id3074435" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
+everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2711597" href="#ftn.id2711597" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>”</span> Its position on these matters has now
-changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id3074461"></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
+changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2711622"></a>
</p><p>
Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3073953" href="#id3073953" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2711098" href="#id2711098" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
-H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>”</span> (1904, 1911). Se
+H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074249" href="#id3074249" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
-
-For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
-Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>”</span> 27 June
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2711393" href="#id2711393" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2711396"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
+report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
+at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
+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
+Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that
+would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
+punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
+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
+currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
+legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
+user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
+<em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
+re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24
+(D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
+million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
+in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
+$17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
+networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
+could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com, August
2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
-(D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized on-line
-copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high as five years
-imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on
-Piracy,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los 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 currently set at $150,000 per copied
-song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
-that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than 600
-songs through a family computer, see <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
-v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In re. Verizon Internet
-Services)</em>, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could
-face liability ranging as high as $90 million. Such astronomical figures
-furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
-sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to $17,500 for four students
-accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
-pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
-proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to
-Fines,</span>”</span> redandblack.com, August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an example of the
-RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
-universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3074330"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3074339"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074435" href="#id3074435" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
+#35</a>. For an example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing,
+and of the subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer
+identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
+Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003,
+D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2711485"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2711491"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2711597" href="#id2711597" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
-in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
-To fight <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> to protect <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property,</span>”</span> the
-content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
-contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
-war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
-of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
+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>
+<span class="strong"><strong>To fight</strong></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to
+protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the content industry has launched a
+war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
+government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
+and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these damages will be
+suffered most by our own people.
</p><p>
My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
-particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free culture.</span>”</span> But my aim now
+particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now
is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
justified?
</p><p>
In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
-the property called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> is at its greatest
+the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest
in our history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3074522"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3074529"></a><p>
-Yet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">common sense</span>”</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2711689"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2711695"></a><p>
+Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
-rejection of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> still has play.
-</p><p>
+rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2711714"></a><p>
There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
together a string—a mash-up— of songs from your favorite artists
in a collage and make it available on the Net.
</p><p>
-This digital <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>”</span> is in part an extension of
+This digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> is in part an extension of
the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
-digital <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>”</span> promises a world of
+digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> promises a world of
extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com—which
defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
market capitalization of over $200 billion—received a fine of a mere
-$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id3074645" href="#ftn.id3074645" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
+$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2711817" href="#ftn.id2711817" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
-damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id3074683" href="#ftn.id3074683" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
+damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2711856" href="#ftn.id2711856" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
-negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id3074727"></a>
-</p><p>
+negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2711899"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2711907"></a><p>
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirates.</span>”</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
world of underground art—not because the message is necessarily
political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
-of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">illegal
-art</span>”</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3074746" href="#ftn.id3074746" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
-what does their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">illegality</span>”</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
+of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal
+art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2711925" href="#ftn.id2711925" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
+what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2711971"></a><p>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
-law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
+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
the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2712000"></a><p>
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
them is not similarly free.
</p><p>
Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
-in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
+in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
on the rule of law.
</p><p>
Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">breathing room</span>”</span> between regulation by the law and the access
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">breathing room</span>»</span> between regulation by the law and the access
the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists— these
are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
-relationship to the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">law</span>”</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
+relationship to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law</span>»</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
</p><p>
For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
her right to speak—in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
-that pass under the name <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> silence speech and
+that pass under the name <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> silence speech and
creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
</p><p>
expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made … you're not going to
get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
-from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>”</span> You're not even
+from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even
going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
which they control it.
</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>
it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
-substituting <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free market</span>”</span> every place I've spoken of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free culture.</span>”</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
+substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span> every place I've spoken of
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
affecting culture are more fundamental.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2712144"></a><p>
The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary—at a minimum, we
is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3074957"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2712152"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
-that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
+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
tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
from last generation's dominant industries. That lesson has been taught
through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
capitalists a lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
-calls a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>”</span> that has fallen over the
+calls a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the
Valley—has been learned.
</p><p>
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
<em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3075013"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2712208"></a><p>
In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com was
keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
-so on. <a class="indexterm" name="id3075036"></a>
+so on. <a class="indexterm" name="id2712231"></a>
</p><p>
This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem. Det får
også du. Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3075140"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3075148"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3075154"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3075160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2712335"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2712343"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2712349"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2712356"></a><p>
This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
(VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
-cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id3075174" href="#ftn.id3075174" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
+cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2712369" href="#ftn.id2712369" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit. So extreme has the
environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
-Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id3075221"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3075228"></a>
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
3075237"></a><p>
+Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2712416"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2712422"></a>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
2712431"></a><p>
I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
-sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <sup>[<a name="id3074906" href="#ftn.id3074906" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
+sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <sup>[<a name="id2712100" href="#ftn.id2712100" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-This is the world of the mafia—filled with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">your money or your
-life</span>”</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
-that the law empowers copyright holders to exercise. It is a system that
-will obviously and necessarily stifle new innovation. It is hard enough to
-start a company. It is impossibly hard if that company is constantly
-threatened by litigation.
+Dette er verden til mafiaen—fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
+livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
+loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
+åpenbart og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å
+starte et selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av
+søksmål.
</p><p>
The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
-enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">illegal.</span>”</span> The law
+enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal.</span>»</span> The law
is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
and much less creativity.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2712518"></a><p>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
-use. Whatever the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">real</span>”</span> law is, realism about the effect of
+use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
are enough to bury a wide range of creativity. Someone needs to do a lot of
-justifying to justify that result. The uncertainty of the law is one burden
+justifying to justify that result.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>The uncertainty</strong></span> of the law is one burden
on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bug.</span>”</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bug.</span>»</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
-efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> then, this
+efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then, this
response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2712595"></a><p>
The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
-or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id3075410" href="#ftn.id3075410" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
-explore a mandatory <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>”</span> that would be required on
+or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2712609" href="#ftn.id2712609" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
+explore a mandatory <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on
any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
-down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id3075439" href="#ftn.id3075439" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
+down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2712638" href="#ftn.id2712638" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
</p><p>
In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
-impose.<sup>[<a name="id3075462" href="#ftn.id3075462" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
+impose.<sup>[<a name="id2712662" href="#ftn.id2712662" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
-protection should not do more harm than good. <a class="indexterm" name="id3075475"></a>
+protection should not do more harm than good. <a class="indexterm" name="id2712674"></a>
</p><p>
-There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
-innovation—again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
-market crowd.
+<span class="strong"><strong>There is one</strong></span> more obvious way in which
+this war has harmed innovation—again, a story that will be quite
+familiar to the free market crowd.
</p><p>
Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others. When
done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
</p><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
+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
subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
-<em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id3075510" href="#ftn.id3075510" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
+<em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2712714" href="#ftn.id2712714" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
</p><p>
-The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id3075546" href="#ftn.id3075546" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
+The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2712750" href="#ftn.id2712750" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
-here.<sup>[<a name="id3075581" href="#ftn.id3075581" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
+here.<sup>[<a name="id2712791" href="#ftn.id2712791" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
radio.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2712852"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
-doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radio performance</span>”</span> unless he or she
+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
+doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
-version of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span>—to memorialize her famous
+version of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span>—to memorialize her famous
performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden— then
whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
-owners of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span> would get some money, whereas
-Marilyn Monroe would not. <a class="indexterm" name="id3075656"></a>
+owners of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> would get some money, whereas
+Marilyn Monroe would not. <a class="indexterm" name="id2712891"></a>
</p><p>
The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum. Thus, I can
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tune in</span>”</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tune in</span>»</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
</p><p>
stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2712955"></a><p>
broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
-shackles.<sup>[<a name="id3075253" href="#ftn.id3075253" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
+shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2712447" href="#ftn.id2712447" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This potential for FM radio was never realized—not because Armstrong
was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3075764" href="#ftn.id3075764" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2713008" href="#ftn.id2713008" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
</p><p>
Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments2"></a><p>
But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
-it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span> on the
+it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> on the
air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
neutral toward Internet radio—the law actually burdens Internet radio
more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
(on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
-year.<sup>[<a name="id3075812" href="#ftn.id3075812" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
+year.<sup>[<a name="id2713072" href="#ftn.id2713072" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2713128"></a><p>
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
the motive to protect artists against piracy?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3076034"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3076041"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2713303"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
Real Networks, told me,
about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
-representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, … <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How do you come
+representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, … <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How do you come
up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
-you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. …</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
-And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
+you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. …</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2713337"></a><p>
+And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
-and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>”</span> (Emphasis added.)
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis added.)
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2713377"></a><p>
Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
-million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id3076135" href="#ftn.id3076135" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
+million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2713429" href="#ftn.id2713429" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals—including a twelve-year-old girl
living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
-file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id3075802" href="#ftn.id3075802" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
+file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2713062" href="#ftn.id2713062" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
-were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id3076216" href="#ftn.id3076216" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
+were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2713510" href="#ftn.id2713510" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
-percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id3076233" href="#ftn.id3076233" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
+percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2713527" href="#ftn.id2713527" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
-that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id3076249" href="#ftn.id3076249" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free
-society,</span>”</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
+that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2713544" href="#ftn.id2713544" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
+society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
-regularly violate at least some law. <a class="indexterm" name="id3076271"></a>
+regularly violate at least some law. <a class="indexterm" name="id2713565"></a>
</p><p>
This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
-about the importance of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ethics.</span>”</span> As my colleague Charlie
+about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
case is over. Generations of Americans—more significantly in some
parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
today—can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">normally</span>”</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3076289"></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2713584"></a>
</p><p>
The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
the extreme of regulation they impose. Twenty million Americans have come
of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sharing.</span>”</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
-Americans <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">citizens,</span>”</span> not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">felons.</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing.</span>»</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
+Americans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">citizens,</span>»</span> not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">felons.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought. The law
protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
-and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use</span>”</span> of the
+and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of the
recordings is free.
</p><p>
But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
-copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> to copy, or
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rip,</span>”</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
-Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">freedom</span>”</span> was
-a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
-Burn</span>”</span> capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3076417"></a><p>
-This <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use</span>”</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
+copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> to copy, or
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip,</span>»</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
+Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was
+a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
+Burn</span>»</span> capacities of digital technologies.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2713711"></a><p>
+This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
-part of a massively complex <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>”</span> system.
+part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
</p><p>
If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
as criminals and their own survival.
</p><p>
+
It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
-important as our tradition of free culture. There's one more aspect to this
+important as our tradition of free culture.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2713818"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier Foundation
-attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">collateral
-damage</span>”</span> that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
-of the population into criminals.</span>”</span> This is the collateral damage to
-civil liberties generally. <a class="indexterm" name="id3076534"></a>
+attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral
+damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
+of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This is the collateral damage to
+civil liberties generally.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>”</span> von
-Lohmann explains, <a class="indexterm" name="id3076549"></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
+von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2713866"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
one degree or another. … If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
continue to receive Internet access? … Our sensibilities change as
-soon as we think, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
-lawbreaker.</span>”</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
+soon as we think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
+lawbreaker.</span>»</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
-into <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>”</span>
+into <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>»</span>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
-these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id3076607" href="#ftn.id3076607" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
+these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2713924" href="#ftn.id2713924" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
-to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id3076663" href="#ftn.id3076663" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
+to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2713980" href="#ftn.id2713980" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
-MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>”</span>
+MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
CD to your daughter—a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
-if the college network is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cooperating</span>”</span> with the RIAA's
+if the college network is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cooperating</span>»</span> with the RIAA's
espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
(do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
-identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">criminal.</span>”</span> And under the rules
-that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id3076708" href="#ftn.id3076708" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
+identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules
+that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2714024" href="#ftn.id2714024" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
network. She can, in some cases, be expelled.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2714096"></a><p>
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
university might not believe her. It might treat this
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">contraband</span>”</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
-Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id3076795"></a>
+Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2714120"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
million of them.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">criminals</span>”</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals</span>»</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
same objective— securing rights to authors—without these
-millions being considered <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">criminals,</span>”</span> who is the villain?
+millions being considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain?
Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074645" href="#id3074645" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2711817" href="#id2711817" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
-See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
+Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
-for details of the settlement, see MCI press release, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">MCI Wins
-U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>”</span> (7 July 2003),
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3074670"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074683" href="#id3074683" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
+for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
+U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2711843"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2711856" href="#id2711856" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
-overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
-Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>”</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
+overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
+Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>”</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
-months. <a class="indexterm" name="id3074714"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074746" href="#id3074746" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
+months. <a class="indexterm" name="id2711887"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2711925" href="#id2711925" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
-See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For an overview of the
-exhibition, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075174" href="#id3075174" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
+Se Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free</span>»</span>,
+<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
+utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#41</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712369" href="#id2712369" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
-See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>”</span>
+See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
-Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>”</span>
+Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>»</span>
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,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3074906" href="#id3074906" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712100" href="#id2712100" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
-Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. I am grateful to
-Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example. <a class="indexterm" name="id3075272"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075410" href="#id3075410" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
+Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s</span>»</span>,
+<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
+Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2712467"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712609" href="#id2712609" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span>
GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
School (2003), 33–35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075439" href="#id3075439" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712638" href="#id2712638" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075462" href="#id3075462" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712662" href="#id2712662" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
-See David McGuire, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>”</span>
+See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span>
Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075510" href="#id3075510" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712714" href="#id2712714" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
-Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id3075518"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075546" href="#id3075546" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
-
-
-The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
-Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
-Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of
-appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
-were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
-unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
-is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
-At the district court level, the only exception is found in
+Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id2712721"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712750" href="#id2712750" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2712753"></a> The only circuit court exception is
+found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry Association of America
+(RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180
+F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
+reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player were not liable for
+contributory copyright infringement for a device that is unable to record or
+redistribute music (a device whose only copying function is to render
+portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive). At the
+district court level, the only exception is found in
<em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
1029 (C.D. Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075581" href="#id3075581" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
-
-For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
-Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
-copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
-copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In August
-2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate that
-technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films broadcast on
-TV (i.e., computers) respect a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>”</span> that would
-disable copying of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator
-Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
-Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital
-media devices. See GartnerG2, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a
-Post-Napster World,</span>”</span> 27 June 2003, 33–34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3075611"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3075619"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075253" href="#id3075253" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712791" href="#id2712791" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2712794"></a> For example, in July 2002,
+Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention
+Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for
+damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop
+copyright infringement. In August 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin
+introduced a bill to mandate that technologies capable of rebroadcasting
+digital copies of films broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would disable copying of that
+content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced
+the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, which mandated
+copyright protection technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
+2003, 33–34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2712829"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2712835"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2712842"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2712447" href="#id2712447" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075764" href="#id3075764" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713008" href="#id2713008" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075812" href="#id3075812" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713072" href="#id2713072" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected. See Jonathan
Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
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
-analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright as
-Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
-Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
+analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright as
+Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
+Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
-media-neutral way.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3075848"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3075857"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076135" href="#id3076135" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
+media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2713108"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2713118"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713429" href="#id2713429" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
-Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>”</span>
+Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
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
American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
music files from the Internet by early 2001.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3075802" href="#id3075802" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713062" href="#id2713062" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
-Alex Pham, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
-Case,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
+Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
+Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
Business.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076216" href="#id3076216" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713510" href="#id2713510" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
-Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
-Prohibition,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
+Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
+Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
no. 2 (1991): 242.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076233" href="#id3076233" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713527" href="#id2713527" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076249" href="#id3076249" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713544" href="#id2713544" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
-See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Tax
-Compliance,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
+See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
+Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
(1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076607" href="#id3076607" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713924" href="#id2713924" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
-See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
-Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>”</span>
+See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
+Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
-to Avoid Being Sued,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
-Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Recording
-Industry Sues Parents,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
-September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
-Snoop Fan, Either,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
-September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>”</span>
+to Avoid Being Sued,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
+Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording
+Industry Sues Parents,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
+September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
+Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
+September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076663" href="#id3076663" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2713980" href="#id2713980" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
-See <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
-Some Methods Used,</span>”</span> CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3076708" href="#id3076708" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
+Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
+Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714024" href="#id2714024" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
-See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
-Penitent,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
-Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
-Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>”</span>
+See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
+Penitent,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
+Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
+Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
-Armstrong, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>”</span>
+Armstrong, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
-Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
-Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>”</span>
+Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
+Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>»</span>
<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,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
-Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">San
-Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
-Are Weapons at Universities,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
+Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
+Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
+Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
September 2000, 3D.
</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>
-Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
-sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
-hvordan du slokker den. Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
-bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Så her</strong></span> er bildet: Du står på siden av
+veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro
+til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke hvordan du slokker den. Ved siden av
+deg er en bøtte, fylt med bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
</p><p>
Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi. I panikk griper
hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe—eller før
tur mot den brennende bilen. Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
</p><p>
-En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt— og vi fokuserer alle på feil
-ting. Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
-virksomheter. Uten tvil kan de true artister. Men teknologier endrer seg.
-Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
-dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet. Dette er en brann som overlatt til
-seg selv vil brenne ut.
+<span class="strong"><strong>En krig</strong></span> om opphavsrett pågår over
+alt— og vi fokuserer alle på feil ting. Det er ingen tvil om at
+dagens teknologier truer eksisterende virksomheter. Uten tvil kan de true
+artister. Men teknologier endrer seg. Industrien og teknologer har en
+rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte dem selv mot dagens trusler på
+Internet. Dette er en brann som overlatt til seg selv vil brenne ut.
</p><p>
langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten. Vi
må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
å lykkes.
-</p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
-In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
-Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
-did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
-New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
-Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
-nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
+</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>
+<span class="strong"><strong>In 1995</strong></span>, a father was frustrated that his
+daughters didn't seem to like Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one
+such father, but at least one did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired
+computer programmer living in New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the
+Web. An electronic version, Eldred thought, with links to pictures and
+explanatory text, would make this nineteenth-century author's work come
+alive.
</p><p>
It didn't work—at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
(<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3077046"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2714386"></a><p>
The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>”</span> which before the Internet
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the Internet
was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
-groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id3077069" href="#ftn.id3077069" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
+groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2714409" href="#ftn.id2714409" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
-library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, in 1998, for the
+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
eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
copyrights—this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019. Indeed, no
copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2714448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2714464"></a><p>
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
-Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyrights should be
-forever.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3077125" href="#ftn.id3077125" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
+Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
+forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2714478" href="#ftn.id2714478" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something—for
-example, to regulate <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>”</span> or
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">declare War.</span>”</span> But here, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">something</span>”</span> is
-something quite specific—to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">promote …
-Progress</span>”</span>—through means that are also specific— by
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">securing</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>”</span> (i.e., copyrights)
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>”</span>
+example, to regulate <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> or
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">declare War.</span>»</span> But here, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something</span>»</span> is
+something quite specific—to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote …
+Progress</span>»</span>—through means that are also specific— by
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e., copyrights)
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
-requirement that terms be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited</span>”</span> will have no practical
+requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> will have no practical
effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
-forbids—perpetual terms <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>”</span> as
-Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id3077225"></a>
+forbids—perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>»</span> as
+Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2714589"></a>
</p><p>
As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
</p><p>
For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
-government. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Corruption</span>”</span> not in the sense that representatives
-are bribed. Rather, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">corruption</span>”</span> in the sense that the system
+government. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Corruption</span>»</span> not in the sense that representatives
+are bribed. Rather, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">corruption</span>»</span> in the sense that the system
induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Next year,</span>”</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">our copyrights in
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Next year,</span>»</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our copyrights in
works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
-of those works.</span>”</span>
+of those works.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>”</span> she continues,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>»</span> she continues,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
-extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>”</span>
+extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-<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
-something about it?</span>”</span>
+<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
+something about it?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>”</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">We could
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We could
contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
-that they support the bill.</span>”</span>
+that they support the bill.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
-whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How much would we get
-if this extension were passed?</span>”</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How much
-is it worth?</span>”</span>
+whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much would we get
+if this extension were passed?</span>»</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much
+is it worth?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well,</span>”</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well,</span>»</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
-percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>”</span>
+percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
conclusion:
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
$1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
-contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>”</span>
+contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>”</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">It is worth it to
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is worth it to
you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
-these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>”</span>
+these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
You quickly get the point—you as the member of the board and, I trust,
buy further extensions of copyright.
</p><p>
In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
-Extension Act, this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">theory</span>”</span> about incentives was proved
+Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
-Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3077419" href="#ftn.id3077419" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
+Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2714783" href="#ftn.id2714783" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
-than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3077436" href="#ftn.id3077436" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
-reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id3077455" href="#ftn.id3077455" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
+than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2714801" href="#ftn.id2714801" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
+reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2714819" href="#ftn.id2714819" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
-be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
-never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
-thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
-applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
-power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
-constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited.</span>”</span> If they
-could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious to
+the obvious. Or at least, it need not be. So when I was considering Eldred's
+complaint, this reality about the never-ending incentives to increase the
+copyright term was central to my thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court
+committed to interpreting and applying the Constitution of our framers would
+see that if Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then there
+would be no effective constitutional requirement that terms be
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they could extend it once, they would extend it
+again and again and again.
</p><p>
It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
</p><p>
Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
-only <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>”</span> (aka <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">interstate
-commerce</span>”</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
+only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> (aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interstate
+commerce</span>»</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
</p><p>
As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce. A Constitution
designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3077533"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2714903"></a><p>
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
-arguments,</span>”</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id3077567" href="#ftn.id3077567" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
+arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2714936" href="#ftn.id2714936" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
-v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id3077594" href="#ftn.id3077594" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
+v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2714963" href="#ftn.id2714963" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
-Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id3077614" href="#ftn.id3077614" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2714983" href="#ftn.id2714983" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
-extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stopping
-point</span>”</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
+extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping
+point</span>»</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
-the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fidelity</span>”</span>
+the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fidelity</span>»</span>
in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
boring. I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
</p><p>
-Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
-<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
-Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
-piracy. Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
-piracy—piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
-and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
-just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
-already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
-the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
-a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
-these entities were using their power—expressed through the power of
-lobbyists' money—to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
-twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
-fighting a piracy that affects us all.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Now let's pause</strong></span> for a moment to make sure
+we understand what the argument in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not
+about. By insisting on the Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously
+Eldred was not endorsing piracy. Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was
+fighting a kind of piracy—piracy of the public domain. When Robert
+Frost wrote his work and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum
+copyright term was just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost
+and Disney had already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their
+work. They had gotten the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution
+envisions: In exchange for a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they
+created new work. But now these entities were using their
+power—expressed through the power of lobbyists' money—to get
+another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop would be
+taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a piracy that affects
+us all.
</p><p>
Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
-domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3077704" href="#ftn.id3077704" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
+domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2715079" href="#ftn.id2715079" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
-pirate's charter. <a class="indexterm" name="id3077730"></a>
+pirate's charter. <a class="indexterm" name="id2715104"></a>
</p><p>
As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
</p><p>
-It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
-Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>”</span> These works are too
-valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
-from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's. Forget
-Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and
-1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
-comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
-not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
+<span class="strong"><strong>It is valuable</strong></span> copyrights that are
+responsible for terms being extended. Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in
+Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too valuable for copyright owners to
+ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright extensions is not
+that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's. Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert
+Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s that have continuing
+commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes not from these
+famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not
+commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
</p><p>
If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through. But the law and its effect were
not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
-generally.<sup>[<a name="id3077775" href="#ftn.id3077775" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
+generally.<sup>[<a name="id2715154" href="#ftn.id2715154" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
have to do?
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2715181"></a><p>
Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
records—especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>”</span> the
-apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
-copyright owners?</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>»</span> the
+apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
+copyright owners?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
creative works is much more dire.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
3077916"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3077922"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
2715301"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2715307"></a><p>
Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
-of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
+of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
-films.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3077946" href="#ftn.id3077946" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3077969"></a>
+films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2715331" href="#ftn.id2715331" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2715354"></a>
</p><p>
Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
$10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
-cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id3078006" href="#ftn.id3078006" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
+cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2715391" href="#ftn.id2715391" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
exceptionally high.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
-copyright owner when she shows up?</span>”</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
+copyright owner when she shows up?</span>»</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
expires.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3078083"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2715468"></a><p>
But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
</p><p>
-Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
-continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
-crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
-creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
-tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">engine of free
-expression.</span>”</span>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Of all the</strong></span> creative work produced by
+humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has continuing commercial value. For that
+tiny fraction, the copyright is a crucially important legal device. For that
+tiny fraction, the copyright creates incentives to produce and distribute
+the creative work. For that tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free expression.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
interfered with anything.
</p><p>
But this situation has now changed.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of. Digital
technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
expression. Copyright is a brake.
</p><p>
-You may well ask, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
+You may well ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too. So
won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
-widely?</span>”</span>
+widely?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes & Noble offered
to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
-what <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the market</span>”</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
+what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the market</span>»</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
library is bigger than this—if you think its role is to archive
culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
not—then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
work for us.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2715661"></a><p>
I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
-value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id3078276" href="#ftn.id3078276" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
+value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2715687" href="#ftn.id2715687" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
-district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
-Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
-that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
-Constitution's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited Times</span>”</span> requirement, and (2) that
-extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
+<span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit on
+Eric Eldred's behalf in federal district court in Washington, D.C., asking
+the court to declare the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
+unconstitutional. The two central claims that we made were (1) that
+extending existing terms violated the Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited
+Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that extending terms by another twenty
+years violated the First Amendment.
</p><p>
The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument. A
panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
court. That dissent gave our claims life.
</p><p>
Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
-be for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited Times</span>”</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
+be for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stopping point</span>”</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
-grant terms that are <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited.</span>”</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
-the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited Times</span>”</span> to give it
+grant terms that are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
+the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> to give it
meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
</p><p>
We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
-the court will sit <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">en banc</span>”</span> to hear the case.
-</p><p>
+the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2715771"></a><p>
The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc. This
time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
</p><p>
-It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
-hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
-the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
-probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
-defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
-supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
-cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
-from my client, Eric Eldred.
+<span class="strong"><strong>It is over</strong></span> a year later as I write these
+words. It is still astonishingly hard. If you know anything at all about
+this story, you know that we lost the appeal. And if you know something more
+than just the minimum, you probably think there was no way this case could
+have been won. After our defeat, I received literally thousands of missives
+by well-wishers and supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this
+noble but doomed cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me
+than the e-mail from my client, Eric Eldred.
</p><p>
Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
burde ha vært vunnet. Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
at vi ikke vant.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3078405"></a><p>
-
-Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
-hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
-starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
-Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
-på grunn av sin støtte til oss. De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
-advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
-saken.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3078428"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078434"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078440"></a><p>
-There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff Stewart was
-the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became quite
-involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view about how this
-case would be won: We would only win, they repeatedly told me, if we could
-make the issue seem <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">important</span>”</span> to the Supreme Court. It had to
-seem as if dramatic harm were being done to free speech and free culture;
-otherwise, they would never vote against <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the most powerful media
-companies in the world.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2715832"></a><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Feil</strong></span> ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble
+først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær
+advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han
+flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra
+sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter på grunn av sin støtte til oss. De
+ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville
+gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele saken.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2715860"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2715866"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2715873"></a><p>
+Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
+først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
+Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
+vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
+få problemet til å virke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">viktig</span>»</span> for Høyesterett. Det måtte
+synes som om dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur,
+ellers ville de aldri stemt mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de mektigste mediaselskapene i
+verden</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
-<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
-<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
+<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
+<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
I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
-allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
+allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
-the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>”</span> The answer, as the
+the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>»</span> The answer, as the
editorial documented, was the power of money. Schlafly enumerated Disney's
contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
-Schlafly argued. <a class="indexterm" name="id3078553"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078559"></a>
+Schlafly argued. <a class="indexterm" name="id2715999"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2716006"></a>
</p><p>
In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3078588"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078597"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078603"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078609"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2716035"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2716043"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2716049"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2716056"></a>
</p><p>
Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
-National Writers Union. <a class="indexterm" name="id3078623"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078630"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3078637"></a><p>
+National Writers Union. <a class="indexterm" name="id2716069"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2716076"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2716084"></a><p>
But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
made the economic argument absolutely clear.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3078652"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078658"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078670"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3078677"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2716098"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2716104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2716110"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2716117"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2716123"></a><p>
This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
create. Such extensions were nothing more than
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>”</span>—the fancy term economists use to describe
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>—the fancy term economists use to describe
special-interest legislation gone wild.
</p><p>
The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3078712"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078721"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078727"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3078733"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2716159"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2716167"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2716173"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2716180"></a>
</p><p>
Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
-the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. <a class="indexterm" name="id3078754"></a>
+the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. <a class="indexterm" name="id2716200"></a>
</p><p>
The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
-well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">friends</span>”</span> included
+well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
holders.
Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work— better
than allowing it to fall into the public domain—because if this
creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3078793" href="#ftn.id3078793" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
-which defended its <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">protection</span>”</span> of the work of George
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2716240" href="#ftn.id2716240" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
+which defended its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George
Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
-cast.<sup>[<a name="id3078818" href="#ftn.id3078818" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
+cast.<sup>[<a name="id2716264" href="#ftn.id2716264" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
-help them effect that control. <a class="indexterm" name="id3078834"></a>
+help them effect that control. <a class="indexterm" name="id2716281"></a>
</p><p>
This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
making a choice about which speakers it will favor. Famous and beloved
copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
-Congress and say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
+Congress and say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
-else.</span>”</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
+else.</span>»</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
traditionally meant to block.
that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
copyrights—extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
-favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. Between
-February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
-case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3078864"></a><p>
+favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there was
+little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the
+strategy.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2716328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2716334"></a><p>
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>”</span> The other we called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the
-Rest.</span>”</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
+Rest.</span>»</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
that Congress's powers had limits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3078900"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2716361"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
Congress's power. These four—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3078935"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2716408"></a><p>
Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2716424"></a><p>
The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
confident he would recognize limits here.
</p><p>
-This analysis of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Rest</span>”</span> showed most clearly where our focus
+This analysis of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest</span>»</span> showed most clearly where our focus
had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
-that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited.</span>”</span> Our aim would be
+that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Our aim would be
to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
limited.
</p><p>
-The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
-it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
-from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
-copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
-practice is unconstitutional.
+<span class="strong"><strong>The argument</strong></span> on the government's side
+came down to this: Congress has done it before. It should be allowed to do
+it again. The government claimed that from the very beginning, Congress has
+been extending the term of existing copyrights. So, the government argued,
+the Court should not now say that practice is unconstitutional.
</p><p>
There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
regularly—eleven times in forty years.
</p><p>
-
-But this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">consistency</span>”</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
+But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic. It
then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
Congress was in a similar cycle of extension. There was no reason it
-couldn't intervene here. Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
-October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
-weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mooted</span>”</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
-to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">moots</span>”</span> are basically practice
-rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
+couldn't intervene here.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Oral argument</strong></span> was scheduled for the first
+week in October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During
+those two weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had
+volunteered to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically
+practice rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
</p><p>
I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079061"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3079068"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2716563"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2716570"></a><p>
One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
-of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id3079081"></a>
+of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2716583"></a>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
harm—passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
-that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079093"></a><p>
-
+that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2716595"></a><p>
He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
thing—not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
right thing—not because of politics but because it is right. As I
listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough. Let the
-politicians learn to see that it was also good. The night before the
-argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
-case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
-culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
-proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
-would be assured a seat.
+politicians learn to see that it was also good.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>The night before</strong></span> the argument, a line of
+people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The case had become a
+focus of the press and of the movement to free culture. Hundreds stood in
+line for the chance to see the proceedings. Scores spent the night on the
+Supreme Court steps so that they would be assured a seat.
</p><p>
Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
powers had any limit.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2716662"></a><p>
Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening. The history
was bothering her.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
act.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
-of what the framers had in mind.</span>”</span> But my response again and again was
+She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
+of what the framers had in mind.</span>»</span> But my response again and again was
to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
under the copyright laws.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079223"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2716739"></a><p>
That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2716788"></a><p>
Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
General Olson,
Court to my side.
</p><p>
-As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
-could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
-differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
+<span class="strong"><strong>As I left</strong></span> the court that day, I knew
+there were a hundred points I wished I could remake. There were a hundred
+questions I wished I had answered differently. But one way of thinking about
+this case left me optimistic.
</p><p>
The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
particular, the Conservatives—would feel itself constrained by the
rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
</p><p>
-The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
-missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
-message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
-Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
-justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
+<span class="strong"><strong>The morning</strong></span> of January 15, 2003, I was
+five minutes late to the office and missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the
+Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the message, I could tell in an instant
+that she had bad news to report.The Supreme Court had affirmed the decision
+of the Court of Appeals. Seven justices had voted in the majority. There
+were two dissents.
</p><p>
A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
not even appear in the Court's opinion.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2716906"></a><p>
important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
will respect, that is the system we have.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079418"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2716952"></a><p>
Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
the words were about patents or copyrights. The Court let Justice Stevens's
charge go unanswered.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079437"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2716981"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
-Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited,</span>”</span> and the existing
+Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> and the existing
term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
unconstitutional.
</p><p>
from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
Prince.
</p><p>
-Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
-gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
-depression. This anger was of two sorts.
-</p><p>
-It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>”</span> It would have
+<span class="strong"><strong>Defeat brings depression</strong></span>. They say it is
+a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger came quickly,
+but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two sorts.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2717033"></a><p>
+It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have
been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
an act of integrity. These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">originalism</span>”</span>—to first understand the framers' text,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span>—to first understand the framers' text,
interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
-other <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">originalist</span>”</span> rulings. Where was their
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">originalism</span>”</span> now?
+other <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalist</span>»</span> rulings. Where was their
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span> now?
</p><p>
Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself. For I
had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
it is.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079551"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2717095"></a><p>
Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular. Most have a
much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
on which a court should decide the issue.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079593"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2717147"></a><p>
Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
-Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id3079604"></a>
+Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2717158"></a>
</p><p>
My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
-was a mistake. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>”</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
-issue should not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id3079638"></a>
+was a mistake. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
+issue should not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2717192"></a>
</p><p>
-
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case—a decision I
-had made four years before—was wrong. While the reaction to the Sonny
-Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
-decision was mixed. No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
-extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
-ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
-been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
-thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
-attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
-law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
+had made four years before—was wrong.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>While the reaction</strong></span> to the Sonny Bono Act
+itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's decision
+was mixed. No one, at least in the press, tried to say that extending the
+term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over ideas. Where
+the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had been skeptical
+of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good thing, even if
+it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was attacked, it was
+attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful law. <em class="citetitle">The
+New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
images—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
-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, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>). The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>”</span> line is a bit
-unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id3079700"></a>
-</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="id
3079721"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+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, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>). The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
+unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2717263"></a>
+</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="id
2717284"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
-<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">grand
-experiment</span>”</span> we call the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public domain</span>”</span> is over? When I
-can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
-Constitution.</span>”</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
+<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand
+experiment</span>»</span> we call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I
+can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
+Constitution.</span>»</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
have made them see differently.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077069" href="#id3077069" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714409" href="#id2714409" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
-protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077125" href="#id3077125" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
-
+protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714478" href="#id2714478" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
-The full text is: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2714483"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2714491"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
-day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>”</span> 144
+day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077419" href="#id3077419" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714783" href="#id2714783" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
-Associated Press, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
-Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077436" href="#id3077436" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
+Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
+Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years</span>»</span>,
+<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714801" href="#id2714801" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
-See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
-Age,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#49</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077455" href="#id3077455" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
+Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
+Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714819" href="#id2714819" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
-Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077567" href="#id3077567" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
+Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars</span>»</span>,
+<em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#50</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714936" href="#id2714936" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077594" href="#id3077594" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714963" href="#id2714963" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
U.S. 598 (2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077614" href="#id3077614" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714983" href="#id2714983" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
-copyrights—the limitation to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited times</span>”</span>
+copyrights—the limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span>
notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077704" href="#id3077704" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2715079" href="#id2715079" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077775" href="#id3077775" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2715154" href="#id2715154" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077946" href="#id3077946" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2715331" href="#id2715331" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
-See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
-Law,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
-Streitfeld, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
-Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>”</span>
+See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
+Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
+Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
+Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3078006" href="#id3078006" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2715391" href="#id2715391" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3078276" href="#id3078276" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2715687" href="#id2715687" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
-Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>”</span>
-20 December 2002,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3078793" href="#id3078793" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
+Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory</span>»</span>,
+20 December 2002,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2716240" href="#id2716240" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3078818" href="#id3078818" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2716264" href="#id2716264" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
-Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
-Joins the Fray,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
+Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
+Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
1998, B7.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
-The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
-was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
-<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied—meaning the case was really
-finally over—fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
-technologists at Disney World.) This was a particularly long flight to my
-least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
-of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3079772"></a><p>
+</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>
+<span class="strong"><strong>The day</strong></span> <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
+decided, fate would have it that I was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The
+day the rehearing petition in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
+denied—meaning the case was really finally over—fate would have
+it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.) This was a
+particularly long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city
+from Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and
+wrote an op-ed piece.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2717340"></a><p>
It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
-useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>”</span> And
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
+useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>»</span> And
so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
turned to an argument of politics.
</p><p>
early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
</p><p>
Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
-the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>”</span> or the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright
-Term Deregulation Act.</span>”</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
+the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>»</span> or the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright
+Term Deregulation Act.</span>»</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
the content go.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079839"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2717407"></a><p>
The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3079878"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2717451"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2717457"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
+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,
when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
-before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id3079896" href="#ftn.id3079896" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
-Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">natural right.</span>”</span>
+before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2717475" href="#ftn.id2717475" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
+Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span>
Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
</p><p>
That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
-without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Walt
-Disney creativity</span>”</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
+without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
+Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
what's protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3079958"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2717543"></a><p>
The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government. He has
-a property right over the table <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">naturally,</span>”</span> and he can assert
+a property right over the table <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturally,</span>»</span> and he can assert
that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
informed the government of his ownership of the table.
</p><p>
confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
-take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id3080064"></a>
+take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id2717649"></a>
</p><p>
This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">get.</span>”</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get.</span>»</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
-terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">short,</span>”</span> then
+terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">short,</span>»</span> then
this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
presumptively uncontrolled.
system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
years. What do you think?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3080157"></a><p>
-Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
-med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
-å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
-kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
-</p><p>
-One representative, Zoe Lofgren of California, went so far as to get the
-bill drafted. The draft solved any problem with international law. It
-imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners possible. In May
-2003, it looked as if the bill would be introduced. On May 16, I posted on
-the Eldred Act blog, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we are close.</span>”</span> There was a general
-reaction in the blog community that something good might happen here.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3080188"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2717742"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Da Steve Forbes</strong></span> støttet idéen, begynte
+enkelte i Washington å følge med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til
+representanter som kan være villig til å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg
+hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de kan være villige til å ta det første
+skrittet.
+</p><p>
+En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
+lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
+lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
+opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
+16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi er nære</span>»</span>. Det
+oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
+her. <a class="indexterm" name="id2717784"></a>
</p><p>
But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
about what this debate is really about.
</p><p>
-The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
-concept in the proposed bill</span>”</span>—that copyrights be renewed. That
-was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>”</span> had
+The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
+concept in the proposed bill</span>»</span>—that copyrights be renewed. That
+was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>»</span> had
occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
owners—apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
-impose <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">enormous</span>”</span> costs, since a registration system is not
+impose <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enormous</span>»</span> costs, since a registration system is not
free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
claim in any case—unless they know about a copyright, they're not
likely to.
</p><p>
-At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
-changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed. In the other,
-common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
-power of the opposition—the power of the side that fought to defend
-the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
-interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
-protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
+<span class="strong"><strong>At the beginning</strong></span> of this book, I told two
+stories about the law reacting to changes in technology. In the one, common
+sense prevailed. In the other, common sense was delayed. The difference
+between the two stories was the power of the opposition—the power of
+the side that fought to defend the status quo. In both cases, a new
+technology threatened old interests. But in only one case did those
+interest's have the power to protect themselves against this new competitive
+threat.
</p><p>
Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
boken har handlet om. For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
resistance.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2717894"></a><p>
But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
-what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>”</span> that fills archives
+what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>»</span> that fills archives
around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
-ask one simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id3080306"></a>
+ask one simple question:
</p><p>
Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
</p><p>
</p><p>
The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
-the protection of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
+the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
</p><p>
competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
creation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3080363"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3080370"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2717965"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2717971"></a><p>
Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom. MPAA
står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
</p><p>
All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
-the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permission
-society.</span>”</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
+the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission
+society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3079896" href="#id3079896" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
-legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
-formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
-author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
-of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
-exercise</span>”</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">shall not be
-subject to any formality.</span>”</span> The prohibition against formalities is
-presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
-Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
-registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
-law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
-repositories, principally the National Museum. Copies of books published in
-the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
-Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
-name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
-Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
-
Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153–54. </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
-Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
-AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten
-millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
-proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere. Viktigere er det at dette er
-17 millioner afrikanere.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2717475" href="#id2717475" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2717480"></a> Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the
+Berne Convention, national copyright legislation sometimes made protection
+depend upon compliance with formalities such as registration, deposit, and
+affixation of notice of the author's claim of copyright. However, starting
+with the 1908 act, every text of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
+enjoyment and the exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition
+against formalities is presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text
+of the Berne Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of
+deposit or registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of
+copyright. French law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works
+in national repositories, principally the National Museum. Copies of books
+published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
+Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
+the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
+works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
+Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
+
153–54. </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>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Det er mer</strong></span> enn trettifem millioner
+mennesker over hele verden med AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i
+Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten
+millioner afrikanere er prosentvis proporsjonalt med syv millioner
+amerikanere. Viktigere er det at dette er 17 millioner afrikanere.
</p><p>
Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
sykdommens utvikling. Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
afrikansk stat råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
$15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
-utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id3080494" href="#ftn.id3080494" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
+utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2718099" href="#ftn.id2718099" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
markedspris.
</p><p>
-In 1997, South Africa tried one tack. It passed a law to allow the
-importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in another
-nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the
-drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is
-called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>”</span> and it is generally permitted
-under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the
-European Union.<sup>[<a name="id3080581" href="#ftn.id3080581" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than
-opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
-characterized it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa …
-not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id3077194" href="#ftn.id3077194" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Through the Office of the United States Trade
-Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the
-law—and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed
-South Africa for possible trade sanctions. That same year, more than forty
-pharmaceutical companies began proceedings in the South African courts to
-challenge the government's actions. The United States was then joined by
-other governments from the EU. Their claim, and the claim of the
-pharmaceutical companies, was that South Africa was violating its
-obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular
-kind of patent— pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these
-governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa
-respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any
-effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<sup>[<a name="id3080637" href="#ftn.id3080637" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
+I 1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming. Landet vedtok en lov som
+tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
+en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren. For eksempel,
+hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
+fra India. Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
+tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
+europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id2718191" href="#ftn.id2718191" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
+International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika … til å ikke tillate
+tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2714558" href="#ftn.id2714558" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
+(USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven—og for å legge
+press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
+som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner. Samme år gikk mer enn førti
+farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
+fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU. Deres påstand, og påstanden til
+farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
+ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter—farmasøytiske
+patenter. Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
+Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
+patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
+Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2718260" href="#ftn.id2718260" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng. Det er ingen tvil om at
patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
selskapene betydelig.
</p><p>
-Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of information,
-which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument about the
-sanctity of property.<sup>[<a name="id3080724" href="#ftn.id3080724" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> It was because
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> would be violated that these drugs
-should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the importance of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> that led these government actors to
-intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
-</p><p>
-Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years from now
-when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have let this
-happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose direct cost would be
-to speed the death of 15 to 30 million Africans, and whose only real benefit
-would be to uphold the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sanctity</span>”</span> of an idea? What possible
-justification could there ever be for a policy that results in so many
-deaths? What exactly is the insanity that would allow so many to die for
-such an abstraction?
+I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
+informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
+eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2718354" href="#ftn.id2718354" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
+grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
+medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om
+viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
+myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
+</p><p>
+La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk. En gang om tredve år vil våre
+barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje? Hvordan
+kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få 15
+til 30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
+fordel var å opprettholde <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ukrenkeligheten</span>»</span> til en idé? Hva
+slags berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i
+så mange døde? Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange
+dør for slik en abstraksjon?
</p><p>
Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene. Det gjør ikke jeg. De er selskaper, og
deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene. De presser på for
overvunnet.
</p><p>
-A different problem, however, could not be overcome. This is the fear of the
-grandstanding politician who would call the presidents of the drug companies
-before a Senate or House hearing, and ask, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How is it you can sell
-this HIV drug in Africa for only $1 a pill, but the same drug would cost an
-American $1,500?</span>”</span> Because there is no <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sound bite</span>”</span>
-answer to that question, its effect would be to induce regulation of prices
-in America. The drug companies thus avoid this spiral by avoiding the first
-step. They reinforce the idea that property should be sacred. They adopt a
-rational strategy in an irrational context, with the unintended consequence
-that perhaps millions die. And that rational strategy thus becomes framed in
-terms of this ideal—the sanctity of an idea called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual
-property.</span>”</span>
+Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
+som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
+senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvordan har det seg at du
+kan selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille
+koster en amerikansker $1 500?</span>»</span> Da det ikke finnes et
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjapt svar</span>»</span> på det spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering
+av priser i Amerika. Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å
+sikre at det første steget ikke tas. De forsterker idéen om at
+eierrettigheter skal være ukrenkelige. De legger seg på en rasjonell
+strategi i en irrasjonell omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at
+kanskje millioner dør. Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
+hjel av dette ideal—helligheten til en idé som kalles
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si? Når den
sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur—sært, og med konsekvenser mer
alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3080902"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3080927"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3080935"></a><p>
-
-En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
-av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
-idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
-det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem. Så ukritisk
-aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
-spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
-folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk. Blindhet blir vår sunne
-fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
-kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
-</p><p>
-So far, common sense sleeps. There is no revolt. Common sense does not yet
-see what there could be to revolt about. The extremism that now dominates
-this debate fits with ideas that seem natural, and that fit is reinforced by
-the RCAs of our day. They wage a frantic war to fight <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span>
-and devastate a culture for creativity. They defend the idea of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property,</span>”</span> while transforming real creators into
-modern-day sharecroppers. They are insulted by the idea that rights should
-be balanced, even though each of the major players in this content war was
-itself a beneficiary of a more balanced ideal. The hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a
-city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even noticed. Powerful lobbies,
-complex issues, and MTV attention spans produce the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">perfect
-storm</span>”</span> for free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3080998"></a><p>
-In August 2003, a fight broke out in the United States about a decision by
-the World Intellectual Property Organization to cancel a
-meeting.<sup>[<a name="id3081009" href="#ftn.id3081009" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> At the request of a wide range
-of interests, WIPO had decided to hold a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open and
-collaborative projects to create public goods.</span>”</span> These are projects
-that have been successful in producing public goods without relying
-exclusively upon a proprietary use of intellectual property. Examples
-include the Internet and the World Wide Web, both of which were developed on
-the basis of protocols in the public domain. It included an emerging trend
-to support open academic journals, including the Public Library of Science
-project that I describe in the Afterword. It included a project to develop
-single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are thought to have great
-significance in biomedical research. (That nonprofit project comprised a
-consortium of the Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and technological
-companies, including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer,
-Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola,
-Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It included the Global Positioning System,
-which Ronald Reagan set free in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open
-source and free software.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081083"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3081092"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081098"></a>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2718504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2718582"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2718591"></a><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>En enkel idé</strong></span> blender oss, og under dekke
+av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt
+med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke
+engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et
+folk som dør uten dem. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til
+kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne
+eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
+demokratisk. Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
+som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
+denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
+</p><p>
+Så langt sover sunn fornuft. Det er intet opprør. Sunn fornuft ser ennå
+ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot. Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
+debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
+forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene. De fører en frenetisk krig for å
+bekjempe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og knuser kreativitetskultur. De
+forsvarer idéen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt eierskap</span>»</span>, mens de endrer ekte
+skapere til moderne leilendinger. De blir fornærmet av idéen om at
+rettigheter skulle være balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne
+innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal. Hykleriet
+rår. Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
+til. Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
+gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2718670"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2718689"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>I august 2003</strong></span> brøt en kamp ut i USA om en
+avgjørelse fra World Intellectual Property Organiation om å avlyse et
+møte.<sup>[<a name="id2718706" href="#ftn.id2718706" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
+med interressenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for
+felleskapet</span>»</span>. Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å produsere goder
+for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære
+immaterielle rettigheter. Eksempler inkluderer internettet og verdensveven,
+begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag av protokoller i allemannseie. Det hadde
+med en begynnende trend for å støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og
+inkluderte Public Library of Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i
+etterordet. Det inkluderte et prosjekt for a utvikle
+enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få stor betydning i
+biomedisinsk forskning. (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av et konsortium av
+Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper, inkludert
+Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
+Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
+Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
+frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet. Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og
+fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2718800"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2718808"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2718814"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2718822"></a><p>
Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
</p><p>
Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
-ideell.<sup>[<a name="id3081123" href="#ftn.id3081123" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2718848" href="#ftn.id2718848" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak
vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
</p><p>
-Indeed, I was once publicly scolded for not recognizing this fact about
-WIPO. In February 2003, I delivered a keynote address to a preparatory
-conference for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At a
-press conference before the address, I was asked what I would say. I
-responded that I would be talking a little about the importance of balance
-in intellectual property for the development of an information society. The
-moderator for the event then promptly interrupted to inform me and the
-assembled reporters that no question about intellectual property would be
-discussed by WSIS, since those questions were the exclusive domain of
-WIPO. In the talk that I had prepared, I had actually made the issue of
-intellectual property relatively minor. But after this astonishing
-statement, I made intellectual property the sole focus of my talk. There was
-no way to talk about an <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Information Society</span>”</span> unless one also
-talked about the range of information and culture that would be free. My
-talk did not make my immoderate moderator very happy. And she was no doubt
-correct that the scope of intellectual property protections was ordinarily
-the stuff of WIPO. But in my view, there couldn't be too much of a
-conversation about how much intellectual property is needed, since in my
-view, the very idea of balance in intellectual property had been lost.
-</p><p>
-So whether or not WSIS can discuss balance in intellectual property, I had
-thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and should. And thus the
-meeting about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
-goods</span>”</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
-</p><p>
-But there is one project within that list that is highly controversial, at
-least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source and free
-software.</span>”</span> Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of the
-subject. From its perspective, a conference to discuss open source and free
-software would be like a conference to discuss Apple's operating
-system. Both open source and free software compete with Microsoft's
-software. And internationally, many governments have begun to explore
-requirements that they use open source or free software, rather than
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>”</span> for their own internal uses.
-</p><p>
-I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make clear
-that the distinction is not between commercial and noncommercial
-software. There are many important companies that depend fundamentally upon
-open source and free software, IBM being the most prominent. IBM is
-increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux operating system, the most
-famous bit of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free software</span>”</span>—and IBM is emphatically a
-commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source and free
-software</span>”</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead, to
-support a mode of software development that is different from
-Microsoft's.<sup>[<a name="id3081224" href="#ftn.id3081224" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081276"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081282"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3081291"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081297"></a>
-</p><p>
-
-More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source and free
-software</span>”</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Open source and free
-software</span>”</span> is not software in the public domain. Instead, like
-Microsoft's software, the copyright owners of free and open source software
-insist quite strongly that the terms of their software license be respected
-by adopters of free and open source software. The terms of that license are
-no doubt different from the terms of a proprietary software license. Free
-software licensed under the General Public License (GPL), for example,
-requires that the source code for the software be made available by anyone
-who modifies and redistributes the software. But that requirement is
-effective only if copyright governs software. If copyright did not govern
-software, then free software could not impose the same kind of requirements
-on its adopters. It thus depends upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
+Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
+om WIPO. I februar 2003 leverte jeg et hovedinnlegg på en forberedende
+konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). På en
+pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om. Jeg
+svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
+immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet. Ordstyreren
+på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
+tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
+WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO. I innlegget jeg hadde
+forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
+hele. Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
+verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg. Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">informasjonssamfunn</span>»</span> uten at en også snakket om andelen av
+informasjon og kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten. Mitt innlegg
+gjorde ikke min overivrige moderator veldig glad. Og hun hadde uten tvil
+rett i at omfanget til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn
+under WIPO. Men etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om
+hvor mye immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde
+selve idéen om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
+</p><p>
+Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
+så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde. Og dermed
+møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
+fellesgoder</span>»</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
+</p><p>
+Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
+blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
+programvare</span>»</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
+emnet. Fra deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen
+kildekode og fri programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples
+operativsystem. Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med
+Microsofts programvare. Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å
+utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
+stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare</span>»</span>, til sine egne interne
+behov.
+</p><p>
+Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her. Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
+det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
+programvare. Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
+fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende. IBM har i stadig større
+grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
+biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>—og IBM er helt klart en
+kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
+ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører. Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
+å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2718991" href="#ftn.id2718991" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2719052"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2719058"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2719068"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2719074"></a>
+</p><p>
+
+Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
+programvare</span>»</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
+kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span> er ikke programvare uten
+opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft,
+insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne av fri programvare ganske sterkt at
+vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir respektert av de som tar i bruk fri
+programvare. Vilkårene i den lisensen er uten tvil forskjellig fra
+vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens. For eksempel krever fri
+programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige lisensen (GPL), at
+kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle som endrer og
+videredistribuerer programvaren. Men dette kravet er kun effektivt hvis
+opphavsrett råder over programvare. Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over
+programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar
+i bruk programvaren. Den er dermed like avhengig av opphavsrettsloven som
+Microsoft.
</p><p>
Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd. I
følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
-slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id3081352" href="#ftn.id3081352" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
-møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id3081370"></a>
+slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2719150" href="#ftn.id2719150" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
+møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id2719169"></a>
</p><p>
Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
-</p><p>
-What was surprising was the United States government's reason for opposing
-the meeting. Again, as reported by Krim, Lois Boland, acting director of
-international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, explained
-that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which
-is to promote intellectual-property rights.</span>”</span> She is quoted as saying,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
-rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2719191"></a><p>
+Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
+møtet. Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
+internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er
+å fremme immaterielle rettigheter.</span>»</span>. Hun skal i følge sitatet ha
+sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
+frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
+WIPO.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
</p><p>
-First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and free
-software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property right called
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span>. Without it, restrictions imposed by those
-licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">runs counter</span>”</span> to the
-mission of promoting intellectual property rights reveals an extraordinary
-gap in understanding—the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
-first-year law student, but an embarrassment from a high government official
-dealing with intellectual property issues.
-</p><p>
-Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">promote</span>”</span> intellectual property maximally? As I had been
-scolded at the preparatory conference of WSIS, WIPO is to consider not only
-how best to protect intellectual property, but also what the best balance of
-intellectual property is. As every economist and lawyer knows, the hard
-question in intellectual property law is to find that balance. But that
-there should be limits is, I had thought, uncontested. One wants to ask
-Ms. Boland, are generic drugs (drugs based on drugs whose patent has
-expired) contrary to the WIPO mission? Does the public domain weaken
-intellectual property? Would it have been better if the protocols of the
-Internet had been patented?
-</p><p>
-Third, even if one believed that the purpose of WIPO was to maximize
-intellectual property rights, in our tradition, intellectual property rights
-are held by individuals and corporations. They get to decide what to do with
-those rights because, again, they are <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> rights. If
-they want to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">waive</span>”</span> or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">disclaim</span>”</span> their rights,
-that is, within our tradition, totally appropriate. When Bill Gates gives
-away more than $20 billion to do good in the world, that is not inconsistent
-with the objectives of the property system. That is, on the contrary, just
-what a property system is supposed to be about: giving individuals the right
-to decide what to do with <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> property. <a class="indexterm" name="id3081480"></a>
-</p><p>
-
-When Ms. Boland says that there is something wrong with a meeting
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights,</span>”</span>
-she's saying that WIPO has an interest in interfering with the choices of
-the individuals who own intellectual property rights. That somehow, WIPO's
-objective should be to stop an individual from <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">waiving</span>”</span> or
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">disclaiming</span>”</span> an intellectual property right. That the interest
-of WIPO is not just that intellectual property rights be maximized, but that
-they also should be exercised in the most extreme and restrictive way
-possible.
-</p><p>
-There is a history of just such a property system that is well known in the
-Anglo-American tradition. It is called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">feudalism.</span>”</span> Under
-feudalism, not only was property held by a relatively small number of
-individuals and entities. And not only were the rights that ran with that
-property powerful and extensive. But the feudal system had a strong interest
-in assuring that property holders within that system not weaken feudalism by
-liberating people or property within their control to the free
-market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control and concentration. It fought
-any freedom that might interfere with that control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3081528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3081534"></a><p>
+For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige. Som jeg beskrev, er det
+meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
+immaterielle retten kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span>. Uten den vil
+begrensningene definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si
+at de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">går imot</span>»</span> formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter
+å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse—den type feil som er
+tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
+statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2719250"></a><p>
+For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt? Som jeg fikk
+kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
+bare hvordan best beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den
+beste balansen rundt immaterielle rettigheter. Som enhver økonom og advokat
+vet, er det vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den
+balansen. Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt. Man
+ønsker å spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på
+medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag? Svekker
+allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter? Ville det vært bedre om internettets
+protokoller hadde vært patentert?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2719288"></a><p>
+For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
+immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
+tradisjon, av individer og selskaper. De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
+med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som eier
+rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> eller
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frasi</span>»</span> seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår
+tradisjon. Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål,
+så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet. Det er heller
+tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
+retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span> eiendom.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxboland"></a><p>
+
+Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som har som sitt
+formål å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter</span>»</span>, så sier hun at
+WIPO har en interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier
+immaterielle rettigheter. At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å
+stoppe individer fra å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fraskrive</span>»</span> eller
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> seg sine immaterielle rettigheter. At interessen
+til WIPO ikke bare er maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men også at de
+skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
+</p><p>
+Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
+anglo-amerikansk tradisjon. Det kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">føydalisme</span>»</span>. Under
+føydalismen var eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall
+individer og aktører. Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å
+sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene
+og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet. Føydalismen var
+avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon. Det sloss mot enhver frihet
+som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2719402"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2719409"></a><p>
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
-vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3081547" href="#ftn.id3081547" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
+vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2719422" href="#ftn.id2719422" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn. Så mye er sikkert. Vårt eneste
valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
<span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>. Trenden er
kommentar som gjorde meg trist. En anonym kommentator skrev,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-George, you misunderstand Lessig: He's only talking about the world as it
-should be (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should
-be to promote the right balance of intellectual property rights, not simply
-to promote intellectual property rights</span>”</span>), not as it is. If we were
-talking about the world as it is, then of course Boland didn't say anything
-wrong. But in the world as Lessig would have it, then of course she
-did. Always pay attention to the distinction between Lessig's world and
-ours.
+George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
+(<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
+riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
+immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>), ikke som den er. Hvis vi snakket om
+verden slik den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt. Men i
+verden slik Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe
+galt. En må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår
+verden.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
-</p><p>
-Obviously, however, the poster was not supporting that idea. Instead, the
-poster was ridiculing the very idea that in the real world, the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">goal</span>”</span> of a government should be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to promote the right
-balance</span>”</span> of intellectual property. That was obviously silly to
-him. And it obviously betrayed, he believed, my own silly
-utopianism. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Typical for an academic,</span>”</span> the poster might well
-have continued.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2719513"></a><p>
+Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen. I
+stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
+skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
+riktige balanse</span>»</span> for immaterielle rettigheter. Det var åpenbart
+tåpelig for ham. Og det avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige
+utopisme. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Typisk for en akademiker</span>»</span>, kunne forfatteren like
+gjerne ha fortsatt.
</p><p>
Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme. Jeg mener også at utopisme er
tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
eget lands historie).
</p><p>
-But when it has become silly to suppose that the role of our government
-should be to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">seek balance,</span>”</span> then count me with the silly, for
-that means that this has become quite serious indeed. If it should be
-obvious to everyone that the government does not seek balance, that the
-government is simply the tool of the most powerful lobbyists, that the idea
-of holding the government to a different standard is absurd, that the idea
-of demanding of the government that it speak truth and not lies is just
-naïve, then who have we, the most powerful democracy in the world,
-become?
+Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">oppnå balanse</span>»</span>, da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det
+betyr at dette faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst. Hvis det bør være åpenbart
+for alle at myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske
+enkelt et verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at idéen om å forvente bedre
+av myndighetene er absurd, at idéen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant
+og ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i
+verden, blitt?
</p><p>
Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
mesteparten av vår historie—fri kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3081675"></a><p>
-Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. Det finnes
-øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
-mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
-medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
-partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
-organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
-Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
-endringen i FCC-reglene. Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
-krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. <a class="indexterm" name="id3081703"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3081710"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2719596"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2719604"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2719610"></a><p>
+Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Det finnes øyeblikk</strong></span> av håp i denne
+kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge
+eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere medieeierskap, dannet det
+seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av partiene for å bekjempe
+endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien organiserte interesser så
+forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William Safire, Ted Turner og
+Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne endringen i
+FCC-reglene. Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med krav om flere
+høringer og et annet resultat.
</p><p>
Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
rettigheter—eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form—som
gjør størrelsen ille.
</p><p>
-It is therefore significant that so many would rally to demand competition
-and increased diversity. Still, if the rally is understood as being about
-bigness alone, it is not terribly surprising. We Americans have a long
-history of fighting <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">big,</span>”</span> wisely or not. That we could be
-motivated to fight <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">big</span>”</span> again is not something new.
+Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
+og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
+størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
+historie med å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stort</span>»</span>, klokt eller ikke. At vi kan
+være motivert til å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store</span>»</span> igjen ikke noe nytt.
</p><p>
-It would be something new, and something very important, if an equal number
-could be rallied to fight the increasing extremism built within the idea of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>”</span> Not because balance is alien to our
-tradition; indeed, as I've argued, balance is our tradition. But because the
-muscle to think critically about the scope of anything called
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> is not well exercised within this tradition anymore.
+Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
+på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span>. Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
+tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon. Men fordi
+evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke er lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
</p><p>
Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
for våre tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3081807"></a><p>
-As I write these final words, the news is filled with stories about the RIAA
-lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.<sup>[<a name="id3081819" href="#ftn.id3081819" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem has just been sued for
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sampling</span>”</span> someone else's music.<sup>[<a name="id3081885" href="#ftn.id3081885" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stealing</span>”</span> from a Japanese
-author has just finished making the rounds.<sup>[<a name="id3081906" href="#ftn.id3081906" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> An insider from Hollywood—who insists he must remain
-anonymous—reports <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
-guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use but
-can't because they can't begin to clear the rights. They've got scores of
-kids who could do amazing things with the content, but it would take scores
-of lawyers to clean it first.</span>”</span> Congressmen are talking about
-deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers thought to violate the
-law. Universities are threatening expulsion for kids who use a computer to
-share content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3081941"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3081947"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3081953"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3081960"></a><p>
-
-Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced that it
-will build a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>”</span> from which British citizens
-can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<sup>[<a name="id3081976" href="#ftn.id3081976" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil,
-himself a folk hero of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to
-release content and free licenses in that Latin American
-country.<sup>[<a name="id3081997" href="#ftn.id3081997" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> I've told a dark story. The
-truth is more mixed. A technology has given us a new freedom. Slowly, some
-begin to understand that this freedom need not mean anarchy. We can carry a
-free culture into the twenty-first century, without artists losing and
-without the potential of digital technology being destroyed. It will take
-some thought, and more importantly, it will take some will to transform the
-RCAs of our day into the Causbys.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2719745"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Mens jeg skriver</strong></span> disse avsluttende
+ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre
+individer.<sup>[<a name="id2719763" href="#ftn.id2719763" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt
+saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span> noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2719832" href="#ftn.id2719832" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan har
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
+over.<sup>[<a name="id2719857" href="#ftn.id2719857" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
+Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym—rapporterer
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene. De har fantastisk
+[gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn
+av at de først må klarere rettighetene. De har hauger med ungdommer som
+kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først kreve hauger
+med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>. Kongressrepresentanter
+snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som
+antas å bryte loven. Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker
+en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2719903"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2719910"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2719917"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2719924"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2719931"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2719938"></a><p>
+
+I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
+bygge opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
+ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2719958" href="#ftn.id2719958" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
+seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
+Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
+landet.<sup>[<a name="id2719983" href="#ftn.id2719983" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk
+historie. Sannheten er mer blandet. En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
+Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
+Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
+taper og uten at potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust. Det vil
+kreve omtanke, og viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omformer RCA-ene av i dag
+til Causbyere.
</p><p>
Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3080494" href="#id3080494" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2718099" href="#id2718099" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
-Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
-Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>”</span> (London, 2002),
-
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#55</a>. According to a World Health Organization press release issued 9
-July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in the developing
-world receive them—and half of them are in Brazil.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3080581" href="#id3080581" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
+Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
+Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
+
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
+9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
+utviklingsland dem de trenger—og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2718191" href="#id2718191" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
-37. <a class="indexterm" name="id3080589"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3080598"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3077194" href="#id3077194" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
+37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2718200"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2718209"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2714558" href="#id2714558" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
July 1999), 150–57 (statement of James Love).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3080637" href="#id3080637" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2718260" href="#id2718260" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
-Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3080724" href="#id3080724" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2718354" href="#id2718354" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
-See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
-Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
-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
+See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
+Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
+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
licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
-property protection</span>”</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
-Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>”</span>
+property protection</span>»</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
+Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
-U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
+U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
-Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
+Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081009" href="#id3081009" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2718706" href="#id2718706" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
-Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, August 2003, E1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19 August 2003,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>;
-William New, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at
-WIPO,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19
-August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#61</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081123" href="#id3081123" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
+Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>,
+<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir</span>»</span>,
+<em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
+at WIPO</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
+19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2718848" href="#id2718848" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081224" href="#id3081224" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
-sophisticated. As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source</span>”</span> software or software in the public
-domain. Microsoft's principal opposition is to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free software</span>”</span>
-licensed under a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyleft</span>”</span> license, meaning a license that
-requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any derivative work. See
-Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace
-to Decide,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source
-Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
-Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
-Research, 2002), 69, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. See also Craig Mundie,
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2718991" href="#id2718991" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
+sofistikert. De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
+programvare som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode</span>»</span> eller programvare som er
+allemannseie. Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
+programvare</span>»</span> lisensiert med en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyleft</span>»</span>-lisens, som
+betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal adoptere same vilkår for
+ethvert avledet verk. Se Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Software:
+Enabling the Marketplace to Decide</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
+Toward Open Source Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings
+Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
+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,
Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
-Model</em>, discussion at New York University Stern School of
-Business (3
May 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081352" href="#id3081352" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
+Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
+Business (3
. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2719150" href="#id2719150" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
-Krim, <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081547" href="#id3081547" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
+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>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2719422" href="#id2719422" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
-210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id3080639"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081819" href="#id3081819" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2718254"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2719763" href="#id2719763" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
-John Borland, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>”</span> CNET News.com,
-September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers,</span>”</span>
-CNN/Money, 8 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni Sangha and
-Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old
-Among 261 Cited as Sharers,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Daily
-News</em>, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits
-Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in
-N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10
-September 2003, E1; Katie Dean, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>, 10 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081885" href="#id3081885" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
+John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
+september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers</span>»</span>, CNN/Money, 8 september 2003,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis Furman sammen med Robert Gearty,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers</span>»</span>,
+<em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9. september 2003, 3; Frank
+Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
+Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants</span>»</span>,
+<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wired
+News</em>, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2719832" href="#id2719832" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
-Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old
-Lady
,</span>”</span> mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081906" href="#id3081906" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
+Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old
+Lady
</span>»</span>, mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2719857" href="#id2719857" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
-Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
-Dylan Songs
,</span>”</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
+Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
+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>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081976" href="#id3081976" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2719958" href="#id2719958" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>”</span> BBC press
-
release, 24 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3081997" href="#id3081997" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public</span>»</span>, pressemelding
+
fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2719983" href="#id2719983" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>”</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6
-August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#71</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Kapittel 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil</span>»</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
+6. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #71</a>.
+</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>
-I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
-noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder. Balansen i denne boken
-kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
+<span class="strong"><strong>I hvert fall</strong></span> noen av de som har lest helt
+hit vil være enig med meg om at noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi
+holder. Balansen i denne boken kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
</p><p>
Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
krever hjelp fra lovgiverne. Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
fri kultur.
</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>
-Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
-been framed at the extremes—as a grand either/or: either property or
-anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
-the choice, then the warriors should win.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Common sense</strong></span> is with the copyright
+warriors because the debate so far has been framed at the extremes—as
+a grand either/or: either property or anarchy, either total control or
+artists won't be paid. If that really is the choice, then the warriors
+should win.
</p><p>
The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
-believe in maximal copyright—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>”</span>—
-and those who reject copyright—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>”</span> The
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>”</span> sorts believe that you should ask
-permission before you <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use</span>”</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>”</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
+believe in maximal copyright—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>—
+and those who reject copyright—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>»</span> The
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe that you should ask
+permission before you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
</p><p>
When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
-tilted in the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>”</span> direction. Content could be
+tilted in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> direction. Content could be
copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
-original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>”</span>
-Content was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taken</span>”</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
+original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>»</span>
+Content was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
effectively unprotected.
</p><p>
This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
-default <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>”</span> the future architecture will make
-the effective default <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>”</span> The architecture
+default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>»</span> the future architecture will make
+the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>»</span> The architecture
and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
-environment where all use of content requires permission. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cut
-and paste</span>”</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>”</span> world that is a creator's
+environment where all use of content requires permission. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut
+and paste</span>»</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span> world that is a creator's
nightmare.
</p><p>
What's needed is a way to say something in the middle—neither
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>”</span> nor <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>”</span> but
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>”</span>— and thus a way to respect
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>»</span>— and thus a way to respect
copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
for granted before.
-</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>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="browsing"></a><p>
If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
</p><p>
Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
</p><p>
-Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, your privacy was
+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
assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
-(there is no law protecting <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span> in public places), and in
+(there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in
many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3082264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2720308"></a><p>
Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
-because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">recently
-viewed</span>”</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
+because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recently
+viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
-not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span>
-protected by the friction disappears, too. <a class="indexterm" name="id3082288"></a>
+not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
+protected by the friction disappears, too. <a class="indexterm" name="id2720332"></a>
</p><p>
Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
-should have the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span> to browse in a library without the
+should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2720355"></a><p>
It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
-for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id3082321" href="#ftn.id3082321" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
+for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2720378" href="#ftn.id2720378" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
commercially, the software—both the source code and the
binaries— was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
-about controlling their software. <a class="indexterm" name="id3082362"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3082374"></a><p>
+about controlling their software. <a class="indexterm" name="id2720420"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2720432"></a><p>
Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
share software would be fundamentally weakened.
-</p><p>
-Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating
-system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was
-the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Linux</span>”</span> kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating
-system. <a class="indexterm" name="id3082441"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3082447"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2720490"></a><p>
+Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
+operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
+overleve. Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
+produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2720512"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2720519"></a>
</p><p>
Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
-inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id3082570"></a>
+inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2720661"></a>
</p><p>
This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets. There's no
their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
competition in our tradition is presumptively a good—especially when
it helps spread knowledge and science.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3082581"></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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2720673"></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>
Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2720725"></a><p>
Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
the person associated with the license believes in something different than
-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
+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
the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
freedoms are given.
</p><p>
license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
choose a license that permits only noncommercial use. She can choose a
license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
-uses (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>”</span>). Or any use so long as no
+uses (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>»</span>). Or any use so long as no
derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
educational use.
freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
-movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">content
-conducers,</span>”</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the
+movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content
+conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the
public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
-domain to other creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id3082720"></a>
+domain to other creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id2720825"></a>
</p><p>
-The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>”</span> sorts. The
+The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The
aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them—are
needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
those rules.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline2"></a><p>
Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2720908"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2720916"></a><p>
+
The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3082795"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3082803"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3082811"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3082817"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2720940"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2720951"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2720958"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2720965"></a><p>
These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
-the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sampling license</span>”</span> do so because anything else would be
+the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling license</span>»</span> do so because anything else would be
hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
(Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">allow</span>”</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
-are so high<sup>[<a name="id3082849" href="#ftn.id3082849" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
+are so high<sup>[<a name="id2720998" href="#ftn.id2720998" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
-their form of creativity might grow. <a class="indexterm" name="id3082870"></a>
+their form of creativity might grow.
</p><p>
Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
license just because they want to express to others the importance of
balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
-are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>”</span>
+are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>
model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
-Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Some Rights
-Reserved,</span>”</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
+Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Some Rights
+Reserved,</span>»</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
</p><p>
In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3082930"></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>
-We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
-take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
-politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms. But
-that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
-we need.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2721075"></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>
+<span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> not reclaim a free culture by
+individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We
+have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and
+implement these reforms. But that also means that we have time to build
+awareness around the changes that we need.
</p><p>
In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
-and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">formalities</span>”</span> are banished.
+and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> are banished.
</p><p>
Why?
</p><p>
-As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
+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
one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
</p><p>
-The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id3083037" href="#ftn.id3083037" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
+The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2721199" href="#ftn.id2721199" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
</p><p>
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 doesn't give
-permission.<sup>[<a name="id3083160" href="#ftn.id3083160" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
-work would therefore be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>”</span> If
+permission.<sup>[<a name="id2721328" href="#ftn.id2721328" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
+work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>»</span> If
someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
uses. This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
-fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id3083289" href="#ftn.id3083289" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
+fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2721461" href="#ftn.id2721461" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
</p><p>
I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
-<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it simple:</em></span> The line between the public domain and
-protected content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the fuzziness of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use,</span>”</span> and the distinction between <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ideas</span>”</span>
-and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">expression.</span>”</span> 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
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone</span>”</span> makes the complexities of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair
-use</span>”</span> and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>”</span> less necessary to navigate.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
+opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart. Advokater
+liker uklarheten som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og forskjellen mellom
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idéer</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uttrykk</span>»</span> har. Denne type lovverk gir
+dem en masse arbeid. Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé:
+vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at det er lite
+behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort. En
+klar og aktiv <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span> gjør komplesiteten av
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
+håndtere.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id3083394" href="#ftn.id3083394" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
+for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2721582" href="#ftn.id2721582" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
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.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3083413"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2721603"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år. Vårt mål bør være
det samme.
</p><p>
-No doubt the extremists will call these ideas <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radical.</span>”</span> (After
-all, I call them <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">extremists.</span>”</span>) But again, the term I
-recommended was longer than the term under Richard Nixon. How
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radical</span>”</span> can it be to ask for a more generous copyright law
-than Richard Nixon presided over?
-</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><p>
+Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikale</span>»</span>. (Tross alt, så kaller jeg dem
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekstremister</span>»</span>.) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre
+enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det
+være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
+president?
+</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="id2721686"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2721693"></a><p>
As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
technology.
</p><p>
-Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive
-right</span>”</span> to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">their writings.</span>”</span> Congress has given authors
-an exclusive right to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">their writings</span>”</span> plus any derivative
+Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive
+right</span>»</span> to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings.</span>»</span> Congress has given authors
+an exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings</span>»</span> 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">my writing.</span>”</span>
+movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id3083524" href="#ftn.id3083524" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
+dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2721745" href="#ftn.id2721745" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id3083538"></a>
+Benjamin Kaplan. <a class="indexterm" name="id2721760"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
-abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id3083554" href="#ftn.id3083554" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
+abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2721776" href="#ftn.id2721776" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
-after the creative work is done. <a class="indexterm" name="id3083592"></a>
+after the creative work is done. <a class="indexterm" name="id2721808"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
be narrowed. Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
important. Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">reuse</span>”</span> of creative material was within the control of
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reuse</span>»</span> of creative material was within the control of
businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2721840"></a><p>
This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
derivative rights—turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
</p><p>
In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
the presumption should be that other uses are not protected. This is the
-reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id3083638" href="#ftn.id3083638" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
+reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2721863" href="#ftn.id2721863" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
expanded protections follow expanded uses.
</p><p>
Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
</p><p>
File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
-all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”">5</a>, they enable four
+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
different kinds of sharing:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
weakened.
</p><p>
-As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For
+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
the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
desert or the Rockies—you can instantaneously be connected to the
Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2722072"></a><p>
In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
you access to content on the fly—such as Internet radio, content that
is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
-Web.<sup>[<a name="id3083886" href="#ftn.id3083886" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
+Web.<sup>[<a name="id2722128" href="#ftn.id2722128" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
-present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">problem</span>”</span> with file
+present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with file
sharing—to the extent there is a real problem—is a problem that
will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
Internet. And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
-to be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">solving</span>”</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
+to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">solving</span>»</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
be gone tomorrow. The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
twenty-first-century technologies.
</p><p>
The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">problems</span>”</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problems</span>»</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
content—uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
-wants shared. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">problem</span>”</span> with this content is to make sure
+wants shared. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with this content is to make sure
that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
demands, no doubt. But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
eliminate kidnapping.
</p><p>
-Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">problem.</span>”</span> This is content
+Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem.</span>»</span> This is content
that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
artist.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2722207"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2722218"></a><p>
Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sharing</span>”</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing</span>»</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
than ideal.
</p><p>
The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
-be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">share</span>”</span> that content, even though
+be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share</span>»</span> that content, even though
the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
should be as free as trading books.
bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
</p><p>
The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
-Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id3084074" href="#ftn.id3084074" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
+Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2722339" href="#ftn.id2722339" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
(1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2722540"></a><p>
Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
<em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
-old system of controlling access. <a class="indexterm" name="id3084240"></a>
-</p><p>
+old system of controlling access.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2722567"></a><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
-supports the widest range of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>”</span> possible. But
+supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span> possible. But
the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
described were accomplished—in particular, the limits on derivative
uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
do with the content itself.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3084258"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2722592"></a><p>
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">harm</span>”</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
on-line.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2722637"></a><p>
This competition has already occurred against the background of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>”</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>»</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious—with
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">first class</span>”</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first class</span>»</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
movie—as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free.</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
</p></li></ol></div><p>
-But what if <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> doesn't disappear? What if there is a
-competitive market providing content at a low cost, but a significant number
-of consumers continue to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">take</span>”</span> content for nothing? Should the
-law do something then?
+Men hva om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> ikke forsvinner? Hva om det
+finnes et konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad,
+men et signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span>
+innhold uten å betale? Burde loven gjøre noe da?
</p><p>
Ja, det bør den. Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
synet ødelegge loven.
</p><p>
-The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radical</span>”</span> by many within the profession, yet the positions that
-I am advocating are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate and
-significant figures in the history of this branch of the law. Many, for
-example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to the Copyright Term
-Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the dominant scholar and
-practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville Nimmer, thought it
-obvious.<sup>[<a name="id3084506" href="#ftn.id3084506" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
+Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene. Jeg er angrepet som en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
+argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
+betydningsfulle personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde
+for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
+vernetid var galskap. Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
+foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
+åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2722874" href="#ftn.id2722874" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter. Men
som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
-lav.<sup>[<a name="id3084542" href="#ftn.id3084542" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
+lav.<sup>[<a name="id2722912" href="#ftn.id2722912" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
</p><p>
Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade. Og det er nettopp det loven
altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2723014"></a><p>
Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
teknologi—filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen—men det bør regulere
kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
-spørsmålet: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>”</span>. Når de blir utfordret
-om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hvorfor
-ikke?</span>”</span>
+spørsmålet: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>»</span>. Når de blir utfordret
+om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor
+ikke?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>”</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
+Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>»</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt. Før du
kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3082321" href="#id3082321" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2720378" href="#id2720378" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
-Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>”</span>
+See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
+Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
par. 6–18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
<em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
-technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3082849" href="#id3082849" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
+technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2720998" href="#id2720998" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083037" href="#id3083037" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2721199" href="#id2721199" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
-by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083160" href="#id3083160" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
+by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2721328" href="#id2721328" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
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.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083289" href="#id3083289" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2721461" href="#id2721461" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
-(25
January 2003): 15, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083394" href="#id3083394" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
+(25
. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2721582" href="#id2721582" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083524" href="#id3083524" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2721745" href="#id2721745" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083554" href="#id3083554" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2721776" href="#id2721776" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083638" href="#id3083638" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2721863" href="#id2721863" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
-187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="id3082336"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3083886" href="#id3083886" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See, for example, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>”</span> The J@pan
-Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3084074" href="#id3084074" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
-
-William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
-Possibilities</em> (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #77</a>; William Fisher,
-<em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of
-Entertainment</em> (forthcoming) (Stanford: Stanford University
-Press, 2004), ch. 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel has
-proposed a related idea that would exempt noncommercial sharing from the
-reach of copyright and would establish compensation to artists to balance
-any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy
-to Allow Free P2P File Sharing,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other proposals,
-see Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip
-S. Corwin on behalf of Sharman Networks, A Letter to Senator Joseph
-R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26
-February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="id2720394"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2722128" href="#id2722128" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
+
+
+For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch</span>»</span>, The J@pan
+Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2722339" href="#id2722339" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
+Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
+2000), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#77</a>; William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law,
+and the Future of Entertainment</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford
+University Press, 2004), kap. 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel har
+foreslått en relatert idé som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
+ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
+å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Impose a
+Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
+fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For andre
+forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>»</span>
+<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8. january 2002, A17; Philip
+S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
+Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26. februar. 2002,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
-Property Use Fee (IPUF)</em>, 3 March 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13 May 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right,</span>”</span> IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>;
-Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign,</span>”</span> CNET
-News.com, 27 August 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>. Fisher's proposal is
-very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for DAT. Unlike Fisher's,
-Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly proportionally, though
-more popular artists would get more than the less popular. As is typical
-with Stallman, his proposal predates the current debate by about a
-decade. See <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3084188"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3084197"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3084203"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3084506" href="#id3084506" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>”</span> (Melville
-B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48
+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,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly</span>»</span>,
+<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,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right</span>»</span>, IEEE Spectrum Online, 1. juli 2002,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#83</a>; Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign</span>»</span>,
+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
+er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman når det gjelder DAT. I
+motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
+kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
+enn mindre populære. Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
+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="id2722496"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2722503"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2722510"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2722517"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2722874" href="#id2722874" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville
+B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48
(2001): 1057, 1069–70.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3084542" href="#id3084542" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
-
-A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is to be
-commended for his careful review of data about infringement, leading him to
-question his own publicly stated position—twice. He initially
-predicted that downloading would substantially harm the industry. He then
-revised his view in light of the data, and he has since revised his view
-again. Compare Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2722912" href="#id2722912" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
+
+Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
+ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
+å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon—to ganger. I starten
+predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade. Han
+endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
+på nytt. Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
-York: Amacom, 2002), (reviewing his original view but expressing skepticism)
-with Stan J. Liebowitz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
-Industry?</span>”</span> working paper, June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>. Liebowitz's careful
-analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the effect of file-sharing
-technology. In my view, however, he underestimates the costs of the legal
-system. See, for example, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3084518"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
+York: Amacom, 2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
+med Stan J. Liebowitz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
+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
+Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
+fildelingsteknologi. Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
+til det juridiske system. Se, for eksempel,
+<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76. <a class="indexterm" name="id2722889"></a>
+</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>
I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven. Og som alle
som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
ustabile. Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
lenken. Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
til en passende referanse til materialet.
-</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Kapittel 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</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>
Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3084762"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2723160"></a><p>
Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D. Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Wink,</span>”</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>”</span> og Richard
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Wink,</span>»</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>»</span> og Richard
Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
flotte svar.)
på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
hatt rett. Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
-</p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id
3084892"></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>advertising, <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>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “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>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">“Piratvirksomhet”</a></dt><dt>AT&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>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “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="#id3058058">“Piratvirksomhet”</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “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>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—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">“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>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “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></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">“Piratvirksomhet”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3058058">“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>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>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “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>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—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—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="#id3058058">“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>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “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>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “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>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “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>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “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="#id3058058">“Piratvirksomhet”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>
+</p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id
2723292"></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>animasjonsfilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>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—igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—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="#id2694088">«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—igjen</a></dt><dt>AT&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 & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bitiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>blogger (Web-logger), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>Engelsk opphavsrettslov utviklet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>gratis online-utgivelser av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tre typer bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bokselgere, Engelske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>bot-er, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: 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>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2694088">«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>fantasifoster/chimera, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2694088">«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>generiske medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>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><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2694088">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2694088">«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: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2694088">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></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: Fantasifoster</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="#id2694088">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2694088">«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—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—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—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—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="#id2694088">«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><dt>Tysk opphavsrettslov, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>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: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>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="#id2694088">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff