-<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 V1.75.2"><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 mediaaktører 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="id2715811"></a><p>
-Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensert med en
+<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) er professor i rettsvitenskep og er John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School. Han 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 BusinessWeeks e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific Americans 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 retten til å innskrenke
+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="idp2019432"></a><p>
+ <span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter forbeholdt"></span>
+ </p><p>
+Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri kultur</em> er lisensiert under en
Creative Commons-lisens. Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
-utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt. For mer
-
informasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
- </p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
-Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org/" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), 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 (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
+utnyttelse av verket dersom opphavsmannen er navngitt. For mer informasjon
+om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
+
</p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
+Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>) er professor i
+rettsvitenskep og er John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved
+Stanford Law School. Han er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and
+Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
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.
- </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication" title="Dedikasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2673752"></a>Dedikasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
-Til Eric Eldred — hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
-hvem saken fortsetter.
-</p><p>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="CreativeCommons"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 1. Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/cc.png" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></div></div></div><p><br class="figure-break">
-</p></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">1. Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-piracy">2. "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-property">3. "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-puzzles">4. Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-balances">5. Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-conclusion">6. Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-afterword">7. Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbyggeing av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">8. Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">9. Takk til</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-figures"><p><b>Figuroversikt</b></p><dl><dt>1. <a href="#CreativeCommons">Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert</a></dt><dt>3.1. <a href="#fig-1331">How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
-the right or regulation.</a></dt><dt>3.2. <a href="#fig-1361">Law has a special role in affecting the three.</a></dt><dt>3.3. <a href="#fig-1371">Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</a></dt><dt>3.4. <a href="#fig-1381">effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</a></dt><dt>3.5. <a href="#fig-1441">Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</a></dt><dt>3.6. <a href="#fig-1442">"Opphavsrett" i dag.</a></dt><dt>3.7. <a href="#fig-1521">Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</a></dt><dt>3.8. <a href="#fig-1531">Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</a></dt><dt>3.9. <a href="#fig-1541">Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
-copyrighted work.</a></dt><dt>3.10. <a href="#fig-1542">Unregulated copying considered "fair uses."</a></dt><dt>3.11. <a href="#fig-1551">Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
-regulated.</a></dt><dt>3.12. <a href="#fig-1611">Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</a></dt><dt>3.13. <a href="#fig-1612">List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</a></dt><dt>3.14. <a href="#fig-1621">E-book of Aristotle;s "Politics"</a></dt><dt>3.15. <a href="#fig-1622">Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politics".</a></dt><dt>3.16. <a href="#fig-1631">List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</a></dt><dt>3.17. <a href="#fig-1641">List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</a></dt><dt>3.18. <a href="#fig-1711">VCR/handgun cartoon.</a></dt><dt>3.19. <a href="#fig-1761">Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</a></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-tables"><p><b>tabelloversikt</b></p><dl><dt>2.1. <a href="#t1">Tabell</a></dt><dt>3.1. <a href="#t2"></a></dt><dt>3.2. <a href="#t3"></a></dt><dt>3.3. <a href="#t4"></a></dt><dt>3.4. <a href="#t5"></a></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2714245"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
-Du kan kjøpe en kopi av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene nedenfor:
-</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div><p>
+Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeeks
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>»</span> og omtalt som en av Scientific Americans <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>
+Du kan kjøpe et eksemplar av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene
+nedenfor:
+</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
</p><p>
The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
</p><p>
Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
-</p><p>
-The Penguin Press, New York
-</p><p>
-Fri Kultur
-</p><p>
-Hvordan store mediaaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
-og kontrollere kreativiteten
-</p><p>
-Lawrence Lessig
-</p><p>
+</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="idp176248"></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: Omformerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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="#idp6197976">Register</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="idp196128"></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 "The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity,"
-<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16, 2003. Copyright
-© 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with permission.
+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>
-Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 3.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 3.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.”</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
-Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
+Humortegningen i <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.”</a> er laget
+av Paul Conrad, og opphavsrettsbeskyttet for Tribune Media Services, Inc.
+Alle rettigheter reservert, trykket her med tillatelse.
</p><p>
-Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figur 3.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 3.19, “Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.”</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
-Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
+Diagrammet i <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761-pattern-modern-media-ownership" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, “Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.”</a>
+kommer fra kontoret til FCC-kommisjonæren, Michael J. Copps.
</p><p>
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
</p><p>
</p><p>
p. cm.
</p><p>
-Includes index.
+Inkluderer register.
</p><p>
-ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
+ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (Innbundet bok)
</p><p>
1. Intellectual property—United States. 2. Mass media—United
States.
</p><p>
343.7309'9—dc22
</p><p>
-This book is printed on acid-free paper.
+Denne boken er trykket på syre-fritt papir.
</p><p>
-Printed in the United States of America
+Trykt i USA
</p><p>
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
</p><p>
-Designed by Marysarah Quinn
+Utformet av Marysarah Quinn
</p><p>
-Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
-Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
-fra github</a>. Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
+Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen, Anders Hagen Jarmund og Kirill
+Miazine. Takk til Ralph Amissah for hjelp med
+registeroppføringene. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
+fra github</a>. Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
</p><p>
Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
-of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book. The
-scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or via
-any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
+of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
+</p><p>
+The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
+via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
punishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
</p></div><div class="preface" title="Forord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
+<span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
+første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
-datarelaterte tekster, skrev dette på slutten av hans gjennomgang av min
-første bok, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>:
+datarelaterte tekster, dette:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
kapasiteten til å straffe. Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
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 "koden", 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 "påvirke" oss mer.
+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.
</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 "folk som er
-ikke pålogget." 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="id
2673271"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p186440"></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 "fri kultur"—ikke
-"fri" som i "fri bar" (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
-programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2673253" href="#ftn.id2673253" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men "fri" som i
-"talefrihet", "fritt marked", "frihandel", "fri konkurranse", "fri vilje" og
-"frie valg". 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 "tillatelseskultur"—en kultur
-der skapere kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne
-fra fortiden.
+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="idp224848" href="#ftn.idp224848" 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
+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
-"vi" på venstresiden eller "dere" på høyresiden, men vi som ikke har
-investert i den bestemt 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="id
2673974"></a><p>
+<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="id
xpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp230376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp230768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp231184"></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 mediakonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
+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 "ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for Peace
-and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
-konservative Ted Stevens", formulerte han kanskje det enkleste uttrykket
-for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han:
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2673993"></a>
+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
+uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han:
</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="id2674016" href="#ftn.id2674016" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="idp233936" href="#ftn.idp233936" 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp235624"></a><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 kun 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
av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den. Det er dette jeg
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 name="ftn.preface01" href="#preface01" class="para">1</a>] </sup>
-David Pogue, "Don't Just Chat, Do Something," <em class="citetitle">New York
-Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2673253" href="#id2673253" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
-Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
+</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
+York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp224848" href="#idp224848" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
+Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Societies</em> 57
(Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2674016" href="#id2674016" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, "The Great Media Gulp," <em class="citetitle">New York
-Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="id2674023"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 1. 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><p>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp233936" href="#idp233936" 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="idp234584"></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="idxwrightbrothers"></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 dets betydning ble alment forstått. Interessen
+for denne nye teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart eksploderte
+nesten umiddelbart, og en hærskare av oppfinnere begynte å bygge videre på
+den.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtrafficlandownershipvs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownershipairtrafficand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpropertyrightsairtrafficvs"></a><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, "i ubestemt grad, oppover".<sup>[<a name="id2674179" href="#ftn.id2674179" 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?
+bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp3593944" href="#ftn.idp3593944" 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?
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3595016"></a><p>
Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
USA—dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid—en betydning. Hvis min
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
2674199"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2674225"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p3595632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3597136"></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 "i ubestemt grad, oppover," så hadde regjeringen trengt seg inn
-på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for dette.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2674245"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2674252"></a><p>
+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="idp3598712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3599088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></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 "ta" eiendom uten kompensasjon. Retten erkjente at
-"det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom rakk til utkanten av
-universet.", 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,
+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>
[Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden. Luften er en
offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært. Hvis det ikke var
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="id2674291" href="#ftn.id2674291" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="idp3603728" href="#ftn.idp3603728" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-"Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft."
-</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3606984"></a><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: "Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.". Men uansett om det tar flere
-sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med et
-lovpraksis-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
2726934"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2726940"></a><p>
+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
p3609640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3610016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3610416"></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 "det synes
-rimelig" 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
-"åpenbart" for alle andre—makten til "sunn fornuft"—ville vinne
-frem. Deres "personlige interesser" ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
+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
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="id2727003"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2727011"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2727018"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3613320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3614016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3614688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3615360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3616728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3617216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3617592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></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: "Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York, som
-opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter."
+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>
Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
-et plass som ble fylt opp. . . . Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og det
-hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. . . . 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-"musikk-boks".<sup>[<a name="id2727082" href="#ftn.id2727082" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+et glass som ble fylt opp. … Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
+det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. …
+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="idp3624136" href="#ftn.idp3624136" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrca"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediaownershipconcentrationin"></a><p>
Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
bedre radioteknologi. Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3627424"></a><p>
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 "radio.". Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin oppfinnelse, var ikke
-Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2672498"></a>
+støy fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>. Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
+oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.
</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="id2727030" href="#ftn.id2727030" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="idp3620312" href="#ftn.idp3620312" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3631240"></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,
+kampanje for å kvele FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2672540"></a>
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessinglawrence"></a><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
for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon. For FM utgjorde,
-hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger . . . en komplett endring i
-maktforholdene rundt radio . . . og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
+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="id2672564" href="#ftn.id2672564" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+makt.<sup>[<a name="idp3634160" href="#ftn.idp3634160" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfcconfmradio"></a><p>
RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
</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="id2672580" href="#ftn.id2672580" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2672595"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="idp3635920" href="#ftn.idp3635920" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
p3638280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3638768"></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
av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&T.) Spredningen av FM-radio var
dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3639952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3640440"></a><p>
Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
patentene ugyldige—uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
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="idp3641056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3642728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3643216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3643592"></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
en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
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="id2727462" href="#ftn.id2727462" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
-problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3645400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3645888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
+<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="idp3648384" href="#ftn.idp3648384" 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
selv. De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
har introdusert.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3651712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3652200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3653440"></a><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 "kommersiell kultur" mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som er produsert
-og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt. Med "ikke-kommersiell kultur"
-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 "Reader", eller
-Joel Barlow sin poesi, så var det kommersiell kultur.
+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
+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.
</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 "fri". 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 styrt av lovverket.
-</p><p>
+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
+styrt av lovverket.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitscommercialcreativityasprimarypurposeof"></a><p>
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="id2727556" href="#ftn.id2727556" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="idp3658944" href="#ftn.idp3658944" 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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3661200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3661704"></a><p>
Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
-fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2727593" href="#ftn.id2727593" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
+fjernet.<sup>[<a name="idp3662512" href="#ftn.idp3662512" 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
den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
tillatelse—har blitt borte. Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3663440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3663992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3665160"></a><p>
Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
kommersiell kreativitet. Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
som motiverer endringen. Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
å beskytte selskapene. Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
drømmen til Causbyene.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3667416"></a><p>
For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
lokale grenselinjer. Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3668528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp149168"></a><p>
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
-"piratvirksomhet" vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt "eiendomsretten" vil bli
-beskyttet. "Krigen" som har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til
-internettet—det presidenten for Motion Picture Association of America
-(MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin "egen terroristkrig"<sup>[<a name="id2727714" href="#ftn.id2727714" 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.
+<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="idp151120" href="#ftn.idp151120" 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 "kreativ eiendomsrett".
-Jeg tror at "piratvirksomhet" er galt, og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør
-straffe "piratvirksomhet", både på og utenfor internettet.
+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 "pirater" også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som har vært
-integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
-</p><p>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp3686360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3686856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3687360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3687792"></a><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="id2727779" href="#ftn.id2727779" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="idp3689032" href="#ftn.idp3689032" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> åndsverkslov, 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 "betydningen av
-teknologi" 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 rop om hellig
-krig mot en industri.
+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
+rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
</p><p>
Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
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="id2727862"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2727867"></a><p>
-Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om "eiendomsrett". 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
-"eiendomsretten" 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 "immaterielle rettigheter" 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 "tar seg til rette" mot legitime krav
-til "eiendomsrett". 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="id2727910"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2727916"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3694400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3694720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></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="idp3698800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3699176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3699552"></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
er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen. I
motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3700920"></a><p>
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 "kultur" som har vært
-"eid" 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.
+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>
Gåten er, hvorfor det? Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
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
2728006"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2728012"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p3705880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3706256"></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 "immaterielle
-rettigheter". 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
+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:
-"piratvirksomhet" og "eiendom". Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er
-å utforske disse to idéene.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3708160"></a><p>
+<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 "noe nytt" 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 "sunn fornuft" 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.
+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
+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.
</p><p>
Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene. Vi tillater det på grunn av at
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 name="ftn.id2674179" href="#id2674179" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3593944" href="#idp3593944" 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 name="ftn.id2674291" href="#id2674291" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3603728" href="#idp3603728" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
-å "ta" 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, "(intellectual) Property and Sovereignty: Notes Toward
-a cultural Geography of Authorship", <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="id2726902"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2726898"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727082" href="#id2727082" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
+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>,
+<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="idp3606048"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp3605792"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3624136" href="#idp3624136" 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 name="ftn.id2727030" href="#id2727030" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," 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 name="ftn.id2672564" href="#id2672564" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2672580" href="#id2672580" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3620312" href="#idp3620312" 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.idp3634160" href="#idp3634160" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3635920" href="#idp3635920" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727462" href="#id2727462" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
-Amanda Lenhart, "The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
-Internet Access and the Digital Divide," 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 name="ftn.id2727556" href="#id2727556" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3648384" href="#idp3648384" 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.idp3658944" href="#idp3658944" 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 gjalt 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, "The Right to Privacy",
-Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. <a class="indexterm" name="id2727084"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727593" href="#id2727593" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
+Åndsverkslovene 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
+åndsverkslovene 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="idp3617024"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3662512" href="#idp3662512" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
-Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727714" href="#id2727714" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
-Amy Harmon, "Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New Tools
-to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club," <em class="citetitle">New York
-Times</em>, 17 January 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727779" href="#id2727779" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
-Neil W. Netanel, "Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society," <em class="citetitle">Yale
-Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2727788"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 2. "Piratvirksomhet"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Kapittel 2. "Piratvirksomhet"</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
-Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
-en krig mot "piratvirksomhet". De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
-"piratvirksomhet", 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,
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="idp3663000"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp151120" href="#idp151120" 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.idp3689032" href="#idp3689032" 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="idp3689720"></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="idp3714272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3715600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3715976"></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 åndsverkslov 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="id2728146" href="#ftn.id2728146" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2728160"></a></blockquote></div><p>
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="idp3718496" href="#ftn.idp3718496" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p3719328"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp3720000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
-I dag er vi midt inne i en annen "krig" mot "piratvirksomhet". 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 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en
-måte som ingen forestilte seg for en generasjon siden.
+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
+muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
+for en generasjon siden.
</p><p>
Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
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 "frata forfatteren overskuddet."
-</p><p>
+opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
+overskuddet.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3724080"></a><p>
Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
-grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin "eiendom" mot denne
-"piratvirksomheten". En generasjon amerikanere, advarer krigerne, blir
-oppdratt til å tro at "eiendom" skal være "gratis". Glem tatoveringer, ikke
-tenk på kroppspiercing—våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
-</p><p>
-Det er ingen tvil om at "piratvirksomhet" er galt, og at pirater bør
-straffes. Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
-"piratvirksomhets"-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.
+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
+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
+blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
+helt sikkert er feil.
</p><p>
Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><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
2728259"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
p3728776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3729152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3729528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor
-Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som "hvis verdi, så rettighet"-teorien
-for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2728273" href="#ftn.id2728273" 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="id2728294" href="#ftn.id2728294" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
-"rettighet"—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2728322"></a><p>
+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="idp3732296" href="#ftn.idp3732296" 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="idp3733672" href="#ftn.idp3733672" 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="idp3736328"></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 "hvis
-verdi, så rettighet" for kreative eierrettigheter har aldri vært USAs teori
-for kreative eierrettigheter. It har aldri stått rot i vårt lovverk.
-</p><p>
+lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter. Men teorien om
+<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><a class="indexterm" name="idp3738208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></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
å markere—skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre. Da opphavsretten kom var det
kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3741544"></a><p>
Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
sammenblandingen mye. Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
håndtere byrden pålagt av loven—til og med byrden som den bysantiske
-kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt. Det var bare nok en kostnad
+kompleksiteten som åndsverksloven har blitt. Det var bare nok en kostnad
ved å drive forretning.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2728376"></a><p>
-But with the birth of the Internet, this natural limit to the reach of the
-law has disappeared. The law controls not just the creativity of commercial
-creators but effectively that of anyone. Although that expansion would not
-matter much if copyright law regulated only "copying," when the law
-regulates as broadly and obscurely as it does, the extension matters a
-lot. The burden of this law now vastly outweighs any original
-benefit—certainly as it affects noncommercial creativity, and
-increasingly as it affects commercial creativity as well. Thus, as we'll see
-more clearly in the chapters below, the law's role is less and less to
-support creativity, and more and more to protect certain industries against
-competition. Just at the time digital technology could unleash an
-extraordinary range of commercial and noncommercial creativity, the law
-burdens this creativity with insanely complex and vague rules and with the
-threat of obscenely severe penalties. We may be seeing, as Richard Florida
-writes, the "Rise of the Creative Class."<sup>[<a name="id2728385" href="#ftn.id2728385" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary rise of
-regulation of this creative class.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3742960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3744376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3744752"></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 åndsverksloven kun regulerte
+<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
+kommersiell kreativitet. Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
+følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
+å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse. Akkurat på tidspunktet da
+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="idp3746088" href="#ftn.idp3746088" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
+Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
+kreative klassen.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3749920"></a><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 "piratvirksomhet" i sin rette sammenheng.
-</p><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><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.
-</p><p>
-Film med sykronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
+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.idp3718496" href="#idp3718496" 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.idp3732296" href="#idp3732296" 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
+Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3733672" href="#idp3733672" 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,
+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="idp3735184"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3746088" href="#idp3746088" 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
+kreativitetsarbeide. Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
+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="idp3748664"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp3749168"></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="idxanimatedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsanimated"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatwillie"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmickeymouse"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt"></a><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
kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm. Ingen visste hvorvidt det
ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
-for det. Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resutlatet
+for det. Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
entydig. Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
</p><p>
Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark. Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
-kom endelig lyd og handlig i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
+kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
</p><p>
Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
-nesten instiktivt 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
-grufult, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2728552" href="#ftn.id2728552" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+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="idp3760952" href="#ftn.idp3760952" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp3761768"></a><p>
Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
-talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: "Jeg har aldri vært så begeistret
-i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like bra." <a class="indexterm" name="id2728575"></a>
+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>
</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
animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle. Og ganske ofte var Disneys
store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3764072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
Dette er kjent stoff. Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
annen viktig overgang. I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm. Dette geniet var
Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
for sine utrolige stunts. Filmen var en klassisk Keaton—fantastisk
populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
-</p><p>
-<em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. appeared before Disney's cartoon
-Steamboat Willie. The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat
-Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2728643" href="#ftn.id2728643" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> and both are built upon a common song as a
-source. It is not just from the invention of synchronized sound in
-<em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> that we get <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
-Willie</em>. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of Steamboat
-Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song "Steamboat Bill," that we get
-Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse.
-</p><p>
-Denne "låningen" var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for industrien.
-Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
-ham.<sup>[<a name="id2728687" href="#ftn.id2728687" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs"></a><p>
+<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="idp3770040" href="#ftn.idp3770040" 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>,
+at vi får Steamboat Willie. Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3773960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3774448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3774936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3775424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
+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="idp3777936" href="#ftn.idp3777936" 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
Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales"></a><p>
Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
-på eventurene til brødrene Grimm. Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
+på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm. Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid. Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
for oss, ganske dystre. Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3786304"></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 "Disney-kreativitet", selv om det vil være litt
-misvisende. Det er mer presist "Walt Disney-kreativitet"—en
-uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på kulturen rundt oss og omformer den
-til noe annet.
-</p><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was relatively
-fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was therefore quite
-vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around thirty
-years—for that minority of creative work that was in fact
-copyrighted.<sup>[<a name="id2728829" href="#ftn.id2728829" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
-years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had
-an "exclusive right" to control certain uses of the work. To use this
-copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the copyright
-owner.
-</p><p>
-At the end of a copyright term, a work passes into the public domain. No
-permission is then needed to draw upon or use that work. No permission and,
-hence, no lawyers. The public domain is a "lawyer-free zone." Thus, most of
-the content from the nineteenth century was free for Disney to use and build
-upon in 1928. It was free for anyone— whether connected or not,
-whether rich or not, whether approved or not—to use and build upon.
-</p><p>
-
-This is the ways things always were—until quite recently. For most of
-our history, the public domain was just over the horizon. From until 1978,
-the average copyright term was never more than thirty-two years, meaning
-that most culture just a generation and a half old was free for anyone to
-build upon without the permission of anyone else. Today's equivalent would
-be for creative work from the 1960s and 1970s to now be free for the next
-Walt Disney to build upon without permission. Yet today, the public domain
-is presumptive only for content from before the Great Depression.
-</p><p>
-Of course, Walt Disney had no monopoly on "Walt Disney creativity." Nor does
-America. The norm of free culture has, until recently, and except within
-totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and quite universal.
-</p><p>
-Consider, for example, a form of creativity that seems strange to many
-Americans but that is inescapable within Japanese culture:
-<em class="citetitle">manga</em>, or comics. The Japanese are fanatics about
-comics. Some 40 percent of publications are comics, and 30 percent of
-publication revenue derives from comics. They are everywhere in Japanese
-society, at every magazine stand, carried by a large proportion of commuters
-on Japan's extraordinary system of public transportation.
-</p><p>
-Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture. That's an
-unattractive characteristic of ours. We're likely to misunderstand much
-about manga, because few of us have ever read anything close to the stories
-that these "graphic novels" tell. For the Japanese, manga cover every aspect
-of social life. For us, comics are "men in tights." And anyway, it's not as
-if the New York subways are filled with readers of Joyce or even
-Hemingway. People of different cultures distract themselves in different
-ways, the Japanese in this interestingly different way.
-</p><p>
-Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga. Det er a beskrive en variant av
-manga som fra en avokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp3788216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3788704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3789192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><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="idp3787880" href="#ftn.idp3787880" 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
+kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse
+opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
+opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
+</p><p>
+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
+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
+ikke—til å bruke og bygge videre på.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3796160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3797456"></a><p>
+
+Dette er slik det alltid har vært—inntil ganske nylig. For
+mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
+Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
+enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
+generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
+fra noen. Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp3799112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3799600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3800088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3800576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3801064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3801664"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcomicsjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs2"></a><p>
+Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
+amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
+<em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier. Japanerne er fanatiske når
+det gjelder tegneserier. Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
+og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier. De er
+over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
+tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
+ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
+</p><p>
+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
+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
+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.
+</p><p>
+Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga. Det er å beskrive en variant av
+manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
-</p><p>
-
-This is the phenomenon of <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>. Doujinshi are
-also comics, but they are a kind of copycat comic. A rich ethic governs the
-creation of doujinshi. It is not doujinshi if it is
-<span class="emphasis"><em>just</em></span> a copy; the artist must make a contribution to the
-art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or significantly. A
-doujinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and develop it
-differently—with a different story line. Or the comic can keep the
-character in character but change its look slightly. There is no formula for
-what makes the doujinshi sufficiently "different." But they must be
-different if they are to be considered true doujinshi. Indeed, there are
-committees that review doujinshi for inclusion within shows and reject any
-copycat comic that is merely a copy.
-</p><p>
-These copycat comics are not a tiny part of the manga market. They are
-huge. More than 33,000 "circles" of creators from across Japan produce these
-bits of Walt Disney creativity. More than 450,000 Japanese come together
-twice a year, in the largest public gathering in the country, to exchange
-and sell them. This market exists in parallel to the mainstream commercial
-manga market. In some ways, it obviously competes with that market, but
-there is no sustained effort by those who control the commercial manga
-market to shut the doujinshi market down. It flourishes, despite the
-competition and despite the law.
-</p><p>
-The most puzzling feature of the doujinshi market, for those trained in the
-law, at least, is that it is allowed to exist at all. Under Japanese
-copyright law, which in this respect (on paper) mirrors American copyright
-law, the doujinshi market is an illegal one. Doujinshi are plainly
-"derivative works." There is no general practice by doujinshi artists of
-securing the permission of the manga creators. Instead, the practice is
-simply to take and modify the creations of others, as Walt Disney did with
-<em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. Under both Japanese and American
-law, that "taking" without the permission of the original copyright owner is
-illegal. It is an infringement of the original copyright to make a copy or a
-derivative work without the original copyright owner's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
-Yet this illegal market exists and indeed flourishes in Japan, and in the
-view of many, it is precisely because it exists that Japanese manga
-flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, "The early
-days of comics in America are very much like what's going on in Japan
-now. . . . American comics were born out of copying each other. . . . That's
-how [the artists] learn to draw—by going into comic books and not
-tracing them, but looking at them and copying them" and building from
-them.<sup>[<a name="id2728954" href="#ftn.id2728954" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part because of
-the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are
-allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, "there are these rules and
-you have to stick to them." There are things Superman "cannot" do. "As a
-creator, it's frustrating having to stick to some parameters which are fifty
-years old."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2729043"></a><p>
-The norm in Japan mitigates this legal difficulty. Some say it is precisely
-the benefit accruing to the Japanese manga market that explains the
-mitigation. Temple University law professor Salil Mehra, for example,
-hypothesizes that the manga market accepts these technical violations
-because they spur the manga market to be more wealthy and
-productive. Everyone would be worse off if doujinshi were banned, so the law
-does not ban doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2729061" href="#ftn.id2729061" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-The problem with this story, however, as Mehra plainly acknowledges, is that
-the mechanism producing this laissez faire response is not clear. It may
-well be that the market as a whole is better off if doujinshi are permitted
-rather than banned, but that doesn't explain why individual copyright owners
-don't sue nonetheless. If the law has no general exception for doujinshi,
-and indeed in some cases individual manga artists have sued doujinshi
-artists, why is there not a more general pattern of blocking this "free
-taking" by the doujinshi culture?
-</p><p>
-I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question as often
-as I could. Perhaps the best account in the end was offered by a friend from
-a major Japanese law firm. "We don't have enough lawyers," he told me one
-afternoon. There "just aren't enough resources to prosecute cases like
-this."
-</p><p>
-
-This is a theme to which we will return: that regulation by law is a
-function of both the words on the books and the costs of making those words
-have effect. For now, focus on the obvious question that is begged: Would
-Japan be better off with more lawyers? Would manga be richer if doujinshi
-artists were regularly prosecuted? Would the Japanese gain something
-important if they could end this practice of uncompensated sharing? Does
-piracy here hurt the victims of the piracy, or does it help them? Would
-lawyers fighting this piracy help their clients or hurt them? Let's pause
-for a moment.
-</p><p>
-If you're like I was a decade ago, or like most people are when they first
-start thinking about these issues, then just about now you should be puzzled
-about something you hadn't thought through before.
-</p><p>
-We live in a world that celebrates "property." I am one of those
-celebrants. I believe in the value of property in general, and I also
-believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call
-"intellectual property."<sup>[<a name="id2729136" href="#ftn.id2729136" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> A large,
-diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, and
-modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.
-</p><p>
-But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of
-value out there that "property" doesn't capture. I don't mean "money can't
-buy you love," but rather, value that is plainly part of a process of
-production, including commercial as well as noncommercial production. If
-Disney animators had stolen a set of pencils to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd
-have no hesitation in condemning that taking as wrong— even though
-trivial, even if unnoticed. Yet there was nothing wrong, at least under the
-law of the day, with Disney's taking from Buster Keaton or from the Brothers
-Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the taking from Keaton because Disney's
-use would have been considered "fair." There was nothing wrong with the
-taking from the Grimms because the Grimms' work was in the public domain.
-</p><p>
-
-Thus, even though the things that Disney took—or more generally, the
-things taken by anyone exercising Walt Disney creativity—are valuable,
-our tradition does not treat those takings as wrong. Some things remain free
-for the taking within a free culture, and that freedom is good.
-</p><p>
-The same with the doujinshi culture. If a doujinshi artist broke into a
-publisher's office and ran off with a thousand copies of his latest
-work—or even one copy—without paying, we'd have no hesitation in
-saying the artist was wrong. In addition to having trespassed, he would have
-stolen something of value. The law bans that stealing in whatever form,
-whether large or small.
-</p><p>
-Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to say that
-the copycat comic artists are "stealing." This form of Walt Disney
-creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in particular find it
-hard to say why.
-</p><p>
-It's the same with a thousand examples that appear everywhere once you begin
-to look. Scientists build upon the work of other scientists without asking
-or paying for the privilege. ("Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but may I have
-permission to use your theory of relativity to show that you were wrong
-about quantum physics?") Acting companies perform adaptations of the works
-of Shakespeare without securing permission from anyone. (Does
-<span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> believe Shakespeare would be better spread
-within our culture if there were a central Shakespeare rights clearinghouse
-that all productions of Shakespeare must appeal to first?) And Hollywood
-goes through cycles with a certain kind of movie: five asteroid films in the
-late 1990s; two volcano disaster films in 1997.
-</p><p>
-
-Creators here and everywhere are always and at all times building upon the
-creativity that went before and that surrounds them now. That building is
-always and everywhere at least partially done without permission and without
-compensating the original creator. No society, free or controlled, has ever
-demanded that every use be paid for or that permission for Walt Disney
-creativity must always be sought. Instead, every society has left a certain
-bit of its culture free for the taking—free societies more fully than
-unfree, perhaps, but all societies to some degree.
-
-</p><p>
-The hard question is therefore not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> a culture is
-free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard question instead is
-"<span class="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?" How much, and how broadly,
-is the culture free for others to take and build upon? Is that freedom
-limited to party members? To members of the royal family? To the top ten
-corporations on the New York Stock Exchange? Or is that freedom spread
-broadly? To artists generally, whether affiliated with the Met or not? To
-musicians generally, whether white or not? To filmmakers generally, whether
-affiliated with a studio or not?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics"></a><p>
+
+Dette er fenomenet <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>. Doujinshi er også
+tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier. En rik etikk styrer
+de som skaper doujinshi. Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
+<span class="emphasis"><em>bare</em></span> er en kopi. Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
+kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig. En
+doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
+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
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt2"></a><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
+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
+kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet. På noen måter konkurrerer det
+åpenbart med det markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som
+kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
+doujinshi-markedet. Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
+for loven.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3816696"></a><p>
+Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
+juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
+Under japansk åndsverkslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på papiret)
+speiler USAs åndsverkslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig. 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 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="idp3819448"></a><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
+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="idp3821080" href="#ftn.idp3821080" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3822640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3823128"></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
+frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
+gamle.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3825096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3826328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></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="idp3828376" href="#ftn.idp3828376" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3830136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3830624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3831112"></a><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
+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?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3832952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3833440"></a><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>.
+</p><p>
+
+Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
+funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
+effekt. Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
+Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
+hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt? Ville Japan vinne
+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?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3836064"></a><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
+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="idp3838576" href="#ftn.idp3838576" 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><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3842152"></a><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
+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
+det som galt—selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir
+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
+fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreeculturederivativeworksbasedon"></a><p>
+
+Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok—eller mer generelt, tingene
+som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet—er
+verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
+Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
+bra.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3846712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3847944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
+Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen. Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
+seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
+siste verk—eller bare en kopi—uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
+nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt. I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
+på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
+i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3851248"></a><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
+Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
+advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3852752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3853240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3853728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3854216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3854704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3855192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3855680"></a><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
+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
+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
+Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
+først?) Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
+astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.
+</p><p>
+
+Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
+som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå. Denne byggingen er alltid og
+overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
+opprinnelige skaperen. Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
+gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
+Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes. Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
+en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
+ta—frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
+alle samfunn.
+
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3858488"></a><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
+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,
+uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke? Til musikere
+generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt,
+uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
</p><p>
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><div class="sect1" title='Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2729287"></a><p>
-In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for
-producing what we would call "photographs." Appropriately enough, they were
-called "daguerreotypes." The process was complicated and expensive, and the
-field was thus limited to professionals and a few zealous and wealthy
-amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre Association that helped
-regulate the industry, as do all such associations, by keeping competition
-down so as to keep prices up.)
-</p><p>
-Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong. This
-pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make "automatic
-pictures." William Talbot soon discovered a process for making "negatives."
-But because the negatives were glass, and had to be kept wet, the process
-still remained expensive and cumbersome. In the 1870s, dry plates were
-developed, making it easier to separate the taking of a picture from its
-developing. These were still plates of glass, and thus it was still not a
-process within reach of most amateurs.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
-
-The technological change that made mass photography possible didn't happen
-until 1888, and was the creation of a single man. George Eastman, himself an
-amateur photographer, was frustrated by the technology of photographs made
-with plates. In a flash of insight (so to speak), Eastman saw that if the
-film could be made to be flexible, it could be held on a single
-spindle. That roll could then be sent to a developer, driving the costs of
-photography down substantially. By lowering the costs, Eastman expected he
-could dramatically broaden the population of photographers.
-</p><p>
-Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of
-it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis
-of its simplicity. "You press the button and we do the rest."<sup>[<a name="id2729360" href="#ftn.id2729360" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in <em class="citetitle">The Kodak
-Primer</em>:
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-The principle of the Kodak system is the separation of the work that any
-person whomsoever can do in making a photograph, from the work that only an
-expert can do. . . . We furnish anybody, man, woman or child, who has
-sufficient intelligence to point a box straight and press a button, with an
-instrument which altogether removes from the practice of photography the
-necessity for exceptional facilities or, in fact, any special knowledge of
-the art. It can be employed without preliminary study, without a darkroom
-and without chemicals.<sup>[<a name="id2729388" href="#ftn.id2729388" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-For $25, anyone could make pictures. The camera came preloaded with film,
-and when it had been used, the camera was returned to an Eastman factory,
-where the film was developed. Over time, of course, the cost of the camera
-and the ease with which it could be used both improved. Roll film thus
-became the basis for the explosive growth of popular photography. Eastman's
-camera first went on sale in 1888; one year later, Kodak was printing more
-than six thousand negatives a day. From 1888 through 1909, while industrial
-production was rising by 4.7 percent, photographic equipment and material
-sales increased by percent.<sup>[<a name="id2729421" href="#ftn.id2729421" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Eastman
-Kodak's sales during the same period experienced an average annual increase
-of over 17 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2729429" href="#ftn.id2729429" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2729438"></a><p>
-
-
-The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It
-was social. Professional photography gave individuals a glimpse of places
-they would never otherwise see. Amateur photography gave them the ability to
-record their own lives in a way they had never been able to do before. As
-author Brian Coe notes, "For the first time the snapshot album provided the
-man on the street with a permanent record of his family and its
-activities. . . . For the first time in history there exists an authentic
-visual record of the appearance and activities of the common man made
-without [literary] interpretation or bias."<sup>[<a name="id2729457" href="#ftn.id2729457" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of expression. The
-pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of expression, of course. But it
-took years of training before they could be deployed by amateurs in any
-useful or effective way. With the Kodak, expression was possible much sooner
-and more simply. The barrier to expression was lowered. Snobs would sneer at
-its "quality"; professionals would discount it as irrelevant. But watch a
-child study how best to frame a picture and you get a sense of the
-experience of creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic tools gave
-ordinary people a way to express themselves more easily than any tools could
-have before.
-</p><p>
-What was required for this technology to flourish? Obviously, Eastman's
-genius was an important part. But also important was the legal environment
-within which Eastman's invention grew. For early in the history of
-photography, there was a series of judicial decisions that could well have
-changed the course of photography substantially. Courts were asked whether
-the photographer, amateur or professional, required permission before he
-could capture and print whatever image he wanted. Their answer was
-no.<sup>[<a name="id2729504" href="#ftn.id2729504" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-
-The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
-familiar. The photographer was "taking" something from the person or
-building whose photograph he shot—pirating something of value. Some
-even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as Disney was not free to
-take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so, too, should
-these photographers not be free to take images that they thought valuable.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2729534"></a><p>
-On the other side was an argument that should be familiar, as well. Sure,
-there may be something of value being used. But citizens should have the
-right to capture at least those images that stand in public view. (Louis
-Brandeis, who would become a Supreme Court Justice, thought the rule should
-be different for images from private spaces.<sup>[<a name="id2729557" href="#ftn.id2729557" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) It may be that this means that the photographer gets something for
-nothing. Just as Disney could take inspiration from <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
-Bill, Jr</em>. or the Brothers Grimm, the photographer should be free
-to capture an image without compensating the source.
-</p><p>
-Fortunately for Mr. Eastman, and for photography in general, these early
-decisions went in favor of the pirates. In general, no permission would be
-required before an image could be captured and shared with others. Instead,
-permission was presumed. Freedom was the default. (The law would eventually
-craft an exception for famous people: commercial photographers who snap
-pictures of famous people for commercial purposes have more restrictions
-than the rest of us. But in the ordinary case, the image can be captured
-without clearing the rights to do the capturing.<sup>[<a name="id2729602" href="#ftn.id2729602" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
-</p><p>
-We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had the law
-gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the photographer,
-then the photographer would have had to demonstrate permission. Perhaps
-Eastman Kodak would have had to demonstrate permission, too, before it
-developed the film upon which images were captured. After all, if permission
-were not granted, then Eastman Kodak would be benefiting from the "theft"
-committed by the photographer. Just as Napster benefited from the copyright
-infringements committed by Napster users, Kodak would be benefiting from the
-"image-right" infringement of its photographers. We could imagine the law
-then requiring that some form of permission be demonstrated before a company
-developed pictures. We could imagine a system developing to demonstrate that
-permission.
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be very hard
-to see how photography could have flourished as it did if the requirement
-for permission had been built into the rules that govern it. Photography
-would have existed. It would have grown in importance over
-time. Professionals would have continued to use the technology as they
-did—since professionals could have more easily borne the burdens of
-the permission system. But the spread of photography to ordinary people
-would not have occurred. Nothing like that growth would have been
-realized. And certainly, nothing like that growth in a democratic technology
-of expression would have been realized. If you drive through San
-Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses painted
-over with colorful and striking images, and the logo "Just Think!" in place
-of the name of a school. But there's little that's "just" cerebral in the
-projects that these busses enable. These buses are filled with technologies
-that teach kids to tinker with film. Not the film of Eastman. Not even the
-film of your VCR. Rather the "film" of digital cameras. Just Think! is a
-project that enables kids to make films, as a way to understand and critique
-the filmed culture that they find all around them. Each year, these busses
-travel to more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred
-children to learn something about media by doing something with media. By
-doing, they think. By tinkering, they learn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2729648"></a><p>
-These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly
-so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen
-dramatically. As one analyst puts it, "Five years ago, a good real-time
-digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get professional
-quality for $595."<sup>[<a name="id2729692" href="#ftn.id2729692" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> These buses are
-filled with technology that would have cost hundreds of thousands just ten
-years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not just buses like this, but
-classrooms across the country where kids are learning more and more of
-something teachers call "media literacy."
-</p><p>
-
-"Media literacy," as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of Just Think!,
-puts it, "is the ability . . . to understand, analyze, and deconstruct media
-images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the way media works, the
-way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and the way people access it."
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2729720"></a>
-</p><p>
-This may seem like an odd way to think about "literacy." For most people,
-literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway and noticing
-split infinitives are the things that "literate" people know about.
-</p><p>
-Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of television
-commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000 commercials
-generally,<sup>[<a name="id2729742" href="#ftn.id2729742" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
-to understand the "grammar" of media. For just as there is a grammar for the
-written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as kids learn how to
-write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to write media by
-constructing lots of (at least at first) terrible media.
-</p><p>
-A growing field of academics and activists sees this form of literacy as
-crucial to the next generation of culture. For though anyone who has written
-understands how difficult writing is—how difficult it is to sequence
-the story, to keep a reader's attention, to craft language to be
-understandable—few of us have any real sense of how difficult media
-is. Or more fundamentally, few of us have a sense of how media works, how it
-holds an audience or leads it through a story, how it triggers emotion or
-builds suspense.
-</p><p>
-It took filmmaking a generation before it could do these things well. But
-even then, the knowledge was in the filming, not in writing about the
-film. The skill came from experiencing the making of a film, not from
-reading a book about it. One learns to write by writing and then reflecting
-upon what one has written. One learns to write with images by making them
-and then reflecting upon what one has created.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2729786"></a><p>
-This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as
-Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
-California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School
-of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about "the placement
-of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and texture."<sup>[<a name="id2729800" href="#ftn.id2729800" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open up an interactive space where
-a story is "played" as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple
-control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author
-Michael Crichton had mastered the narrative of science fiction. But when he
-tried to design a computer game based on one of his works, it was a new
-craft he had to learn. How to lead people through a game without their
-feeling they have been led was not obvious, even to a wildly successful
-author.<sup>[<a name="id2729832" href="#ftn.id2729832" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2729854"></a><p>
-This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes,
-"people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t is
-perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If a
-filmmaker succeeds you do not know how you were led." If you know you were
-led through a film, the film has failed.
-</p><p>
-Yet the push for an expanded literacy—one that goes beyond text to
-include audio and visual elements—is not about making better film
-directors. The aim is not to improve the profession of filmmaking at all.
-Instead, as Daley explained,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-From my perspective, probably the most important digital divide is not
-access to a box. It's the ability to be empowered with the language that
-that box works in. Otherwise only a very few people can write with this
-language, and all the rest of us are reduced to being read-only.
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-"Read-only." Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere. Couch
-potatoes. Consumers. This is the world of media from the twentieth century.
-</p><p>
-The twenty-first century could be different. This is the crucial point: It
-could be both read and write. Or at least reading and better understanding
-the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that
-enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this
-literacy in particular, is to "empower people to choose the appropriate
-language for what they need to create or express."<sup>[<a name="id2729903" href="#ftn.id2729903" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable students "to communicate in the
-language of the twenty-first century."<sup>[<a name="id2729921" href="#ftn.id2729921" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2729929"></a><p>
-As with any language, this language comes more easily to some than to
-others. It doesn't necessarily come more easily to those who excel in
-written language. Daley and Stephanie Barish, director of the Institute for
-Multimedia Literacy at the Annenberg Center, describe one particularly
-poignant example of a project they ran in a high school. The high school
-was a very poor inner-city Los Angeles school. In all the traditional
-measures of success, this school was a failure. But Daley and Barish ran a
-program that gave kids an opportunity to use film to express meaning about
-something the students know something about—gun violence.
-</p><p>
-The class was held on Friday afternoons, and it created a relatively new
-problem for the school. While the challenge in most classes was getting the
-kids to come, the challenge in this class was keeping them away. The "kids
-were showing up at 6 A.M. and leaving at 5 at night," said Barish. They were
-working harder than in any other class to do what education should be
-about—learning how to express themselves.
-</p><p>
-Using whatever "free web stuff they could find," and relatively simple tools
-to enable the kids to mix "image, sound, and text," Barish said this class
-produced a series of projects that showed something about gun violence that
-few would otherwise understand. This was an issue close to the lives of
-these students. The project "gave them a tool and empowered them to be able
-to both understand it and talk about it," Barish explained. That tool
-succeeded in creating expression—far more successfully and powerfully
-than could have been created using only text. "If you had said to these
-students, `you have to do it in text,' they would've just thrown their hands
-up and gone and done something else," Barish described, in part, no doubt,
-because expressing themselves in text is not something these students can do
-well. Yet neither is text a form in which <span class="emphasis"><em>these</em></span> ideas
-can be expressed well. The power of this message depended upon its
-connection to this form of expression.
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-"But isn't education about teaching kids to write?" I asked. In part, of
-course, it is. But why are we teaching kids to write? Education, Daley
-explained, is about giving students a way of "constructing meaning." To say
-that that means just writing is like saying teaching writing is only about
-teaching kids how to spell. Text is one part—and increasingly, not the
-most powerful part—of constructing meaning. As Daley explained in the
-most moving part of our interview,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-What you want is to give these students ways of constructing meaning. If all
-you give them is text, they're not going to do it. Because they can't. You
-know, you've got Johnny who can look at a video, he can play a video game,
-he can do graffiti all over your walls, he can take your car apart, and he
-can do all sorts of other things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny
-comes to school and you say, "Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you can do
-matters." Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss you or he [can]
-dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to dismiss
-you. [But i]nstead, if you say, "Well, with all these things that you can
-do, let's talk about this issue. Play for me music that you think reflects
-that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw for me
-something that reflects that." Not by giving a kid a video camera and
-. . . saying, "Let's go have fun with the video camera and make a little
-movie." But instead, really help you take these elements that you
-understand, that are your language, and construct meaning about the
-topic. . . .
-</p><p>
-That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of course, is eventually,
-as it has happened in all these classes, they bump up against the fact, "I
-need to explain this and I really need to write something." And as one of
-the teachers told Stephanie, they would rewrite a paragraph 5, 6, 7, 8
-times, till they got it right.
-</p><p>
-
-Because they needed to. There was a reason for doing it. They needed to say
-something, as opposed to just jumping through your hoops. They actually
-needed to use a language that they didn't speak very well. But they had come
-to understand that they had a lot of power with this language."
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-When two planes crashed into the World Trade Center, another into the
-Pentagon, and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field, all media around the world
-shifted to this news. Every moment of just about every day for that week,
-and for weeks after, television in particular, and media generally, retold
-the story of the events we had just witnessed. The telling was a retelling,
-because we had seen the events that were described. The genius of this awful
-act of terrorism was that the delayed second attack was perfectly timed to
-assure that the whole world would be watching.
-</p><p>
-These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music scored
-for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across the
-screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was "balance," and
-seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly
-come to expect it, "news as entertainment," even if the entertainment is
-tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2730082"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2730088"></a><p>
-But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of September 11,"
-those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different production as
-well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same events. Yet these
-Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some people constructed photo
-pages that captured images from around the world and presented them as slide
-shows with text. Some offered open letters. There were sound
-recordings. There was anger and frustration. There were attempts to provide
-context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn raising, in
-the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book <em class="citetitle">Cyber
-Rights</em>, around a news event that had captured the attention of
-the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there was also the Internet.
-</p><p>
-
-I don't mean simply to praise the Internet—though I do think the
-people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean instead
-to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a Kodak, the
-Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a movie by a student
-on the "Just Think!" bus, the visual images could be mixed with sound or
-text.
-</p><p>
-But unlike any technology for simply capturing images, the Internet allows
-these creations to be shared with an extraordinary number of people,
-practically instantaneously. This is something new in our
-tradition—not just that culture can be captured mechanically, and
-obviously not just that events are commented upon critically, but that this
-mix of captured images, sound, and commentary can be widely spread
-practically instantaneously.
-</p><p>
-September 11 was not an aberration. It was a beginning. Around the same
-time, a form of communication that has grown dramatically was just beginning
-to come into public consciousness: the Web-log, or blog. The blog is a kind
-of public diary, and within some cultures, such as in Japan, it functions
-very much like a diary. In those cultures, it records private facts in a
-public way—it's a kind of electronic <em class="citetitle">Jerry
-Springer</em>, available anywhere in the world.
-</p><p>
-But in the United States, blogs have taken on a very different character.
-There are some who use the space simply to talk about their private
-life. But there are many who use the space to engage in public
-discourse. Discussing matters of public import, criticizing others who are
-mistaken in their views, criticizing politicians about the decisions they
-make, offering solutions to problems we all see: blogs create the sense of a
-virtual public meeting, but one in which we don't all hope to be there at
-the same time and in which conversations are not necessarily linked. The
-best of the blog entries are relatively short; they point directly to words
-used by others, criticizing with or adding to them. They are arguably the
-most important form of unchoreographed public discourse that we have.
-</p><p>
-
-That's a strong statement. Yet it says as much about our democracy as it
-does about blogs. This is the part of America that is most difficult for
-those of us who love America to accept: Our democracy has atrophied. Of
-course we have elections, and most of the time the courts allow those
-elections to count. A relatively small number of people vote in those
-elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally professionalized
-and routinized. Most of us think this is democracy.
-</p><p>
-But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy means rule by
-the people, but rule means something more than mere elections. In our
-tradition, it also means control through reasoned discourse. This was the
-idea that captured the imagination of Alexis de Tocqueville, the
-nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the most important account of
-early "Democracy in America." It wasn't popular elections that fascinated
-him—it was the jury, an institution that gave ordinary people the
-right to choose life or death for other citizens. And most fascinating for
-him was that the jury didn't just vote about the outcome they would
-impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the "right" result; they
-tried to persuade each other of the "right" result, and in criminal cases at
-least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to
-an end.<sup>[<a name="id2730129" href="#ftn.id2730129" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place,
-there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are
-pushing to create just such an institution.<sup>[<a name="id2730216" href="#ftn.id2730216" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
-remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place
-for "democratic deliberation" to occur.
-</p><p>
-More bizarrely, there is generally not even permission for it to occur. We,
-the most powerful democracy in the world, have developed a strong norm
-against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about politics with people
-you agree with. But it is rude to argue about politics with people you
-disagree with. Political discourse becomes isolated, and isolated discourse
-becomes more extreme.<sup>[<a name="id2730246" href="#ftn.id2730246" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> We say what our
-friends want to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say.
-</p><p>
-
-Enter the blog. The blog's very architecture solves one part of this
-problem. People post when they want to post, and people read when they want
-to read. The most difficult time is synchronous time. Technologies that
-enable asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, increase the opportunity
-for communication. Blogs allow for public discourse without the public ever
-needing to gather in a single public place.
-</p><p>
-But beyond architecture, blogs also have solved the problem of
-norms. There's no norm (yet) in blog space not to talk about politics.
-Indeed, the space is filled with political speech, on both the right and the
-left. Some of the most popular sites are conservative or libertarian, but
-there are many of all political stripes. And even blogs that are not
-political cover political issues when the occasion merits.
-</p><p>
-The significance of these blogs is tiny now, though not so tiny. The name
-Howard Dean may well have faded from the 2004 presidential race but for
-blogs. Yet even if the number of readers is small, the reading is having an
-effect. <a class="indexterm" name="id2730290"></a>
-</p><p>
-One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
-mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott "misspoke"
-at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising Thurmond's
-segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that this story would
-disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight hours. It did. But he
-didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The bloggers kept researching
-the story. Over time, more and more instances of the same "misspeaking"
-emerged. Finally, the story broke back into the mainstream press. In the
-end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2730309" href="#ftn.id2730309" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2730318"></a>
-</p><p>
-This different cycle is possible because the same commercial pressures don't
-exist with blogs as with other ventures. Television and newspapers are
-commercial entities. They must work to keep attention. If they lose
-readers, they lose revenue. Like sharks, they must move on.
-</p><p>
-But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they can
-focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a particularly
-interesting story, more and more people link to that story. And as the
-number of links to a particular story increases, it rises in the ranks of
-stories. People read what is popular; what is popular has been selected by a
-very democratic process of peer-generated rankings.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
-
-There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle from
-the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this movement and
-a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the
-absence of a financial "conflict of interest." "I think you have to take the
-conflict of interest" out of journalism, Winer told me. "An amateur
-journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the conflict of
-interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of get it out of
-the way."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2730370"></a><p>
-These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated
-(more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public
-than an unconcentrated media can—as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq
-war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own
-employees.<sup>[<a name="id2730190" href="#ftn.id2730190" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
-more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the
-Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink
-with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter
-over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer
-a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
-told her <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> they were writing "the story.")
-</p><p> Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate—"amateur" not in
-the sense of inexperienced, but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning
-not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range
-of input into a story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when
-hundreds from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to
-retell what they had seen.<sup>[<a name="id2730405" href="#ftn.id2730405" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it
-drives readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as
-Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly
-with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it"—with all the
-benefits, and costs, that might entail.
-</p><p>
-
-Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with
-blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for public
-figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's not clear that
-"journalism" is happy about this—some journalists have been told to
-curtail their blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2730435" href="#ftn.id2730435" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear
-that we are still in transition. "A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
-exercises," Winer told me. There is a lot that must mature before this
-space has its mature effect. And as the inclusion of content in this space
-is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on
-copyright), Winer said, "we will be the last thing that gets shut down."
-</p><p>
-This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because "you don't
-have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper." That is
-true. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As more and more
-citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will change
-the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and
-misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be
-criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has
-been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore
-when he has been proven wrong. The writing of ideas, arguments, and
-criticism improves democracy. Today there are probably a couple of million
-blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be
-something extraordinary to report.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2730501"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
-John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work,
-as his Web site describes it, is "human learning and . . . the creation of
-knowledge ecologies for creating . . . innovation."
-</p><p>
-Brown thus looks at these technologies of digital creativity a bit
-differently from the perspectives I've sketched so far. I'm sure he would be
-excited about any technology that might improve democracy. But his real
-excitement comes from how these technologies affect learning.
-</p><p>
-
-As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When "a lot of us grew up," he
-explains, that tinkering was done "on motorcycle engines, lawnmower engines,
-automobiles, radios, and so on." But digital technologies enable a different
-kind of tinkering—with abstract ideas though in concrete form. The
-kids at Just Think! not only think about how a commercial portrays a
-politician; using digital technology, they can take the commercial apart and
-manipulate it, tinker with it to see how it does what it does. Digital
-technologies launch a kind of bricolage, or "free collage," as Brown calls
-it. Many get to add to or transform the tinkering of many others.
-</p><p>
-The best large-scale example of this kind of tinkering so far is free
-software or open-source software (FS/OSS). FS/OSS is software whose source
-code is shared. Anyone can download the technology that makes a FS/OSS
-program run. And anyone eager to learn how a particular bit of FS/OSS
-technology works can tinker with the code.
-</p><p>
-This opportunity creates a "completely new kind of learning platform," as
-Brown describes. "As soon as you start doing that, you . . . unleash a free
-collage on the community, so that other people can start looking at your
-code, tinkering with it, trying it out, seeing if they can improve it." Each
-effort is a kind of apprenticeship. "Open source becomes a major
-apprenticeship platform."
-</p><p>
-In this process, "the concrete things you tinker with are abstract. They
-are code." Kids are "shifting to the ability to tinker in the abstract, and
-this tinkering is no longer an isolated activity that you're doing in your
-garage. You are tinkering with a community platform. . . . You are
-tinkering with other people's stuff. The more you tinker the more you
-improve." The more you improve, the more you learn.
-</p><p>
-This same thing happens with content, too. And it happens in the same
-collaborative way when that content is part of the Web. As Brown puts it,
-"the Web [is] the first medium that truly honors multiple forms of
-intelligence." Earlier technologies, such as the typewriter or word
-processors, helped amplify text. But the Web amplifies much more than
-text. "The Web . . . says if you are musical, if you are artistic, if you
-are visual, if you are interested in film . . . [then] there is a lot you
-can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor these
-multiple forms of intelligence."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2730595"></a><p>
-
-Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and Just
-Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well as
-creates. It develops talents differently, and it builds a different kind of
-recognition.
-</p><p>
-Yet the freedom to tinker with these objects is not guaranteed. Indeed, as
-we'll see through the course of this book, that freedom is increasingly
-highly contested. While there's no doubt that your father had the right to
-tinker with the car engine, there's great doubt that your child will have
-the right to tinker with the images she finds all around. The law and,
-increasingly, technology interfere with a freedom that technology, and
-curiosity, would otherwise ensure.
-</p><p>
-These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars.
-Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter 10) has
-developed a powerful argument in favor of the "right to tinker" as it
-applies to computer science and to knowledge in general.<sup>[<a name="id2730629" href="#ftn.id2730629" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more
-fundamental. It is about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because
-of the law.
-</p><p>
-"This is where education in the twenty-first century is going," Brown
-explains. We need to "understand how kids who grow up digital think and want
-to learn."
-</p><p>
-"Yet," as Brown continued, and as the balance of this book will evince, "we
-are building a legal system that completely suppresses the natural
-tendencies of today's digital kids. . . . We're building an architecture
-that unleashes 60 percent of the brain [and] a legal system that closes down
-that part of the brain."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2730660"></a><p>
-We're building a technology that takes the magic of Kodak, mixes moving
-images and sound, and adds a space for commentary and an opportunity to
-spread that creativity everywhere. But we're building the law to close down
-that technology.
-</p><p>
-"No way to run a culture," as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in chapter 9,
-quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
-</p></div><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><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><p>
-RPI is one of America's foremost technological research institutions. It
-offers degrees in fields ranging from architecture and engineering to
-information sciences. More than 65 percent of its five thousand
-undergraduates finished in the top 10 percent of their high school
-class. The school is thus a perfect mix of talent and experience to imagine
-and then build, a generation for the network age.
-</p><p>
-RPI's computer network links students, faculty, and administration to one
-another. It also links RPI to the Internet. Not everything available on the
-RPI network is available on the Internet. But the network is designed to
-enable students to get access to the Internet, as well as more intimate
-access to other members of the RPI community.
-</p><p>
-
-Search engines are a measure of a network's intimacy. Google brought the
-Internet much closer to all of us by fantastically improving the quality of
-search on the network. Specialty search engines can do this even better. The
-idea of "intranet" search engines, search engines that search within the
-network of a particular institution, is to provide users of that institution
-with better access to material from that institution. Businesses do this
-all the time, enabling employees to have access to material that people
-outside the business can't get. Universities do it as well.
-</p><p>
-These engines are enabled by the network technology itself. Microsoft, for
-example, has a network file system that makes it very easy for search
-engines tuned to that network to query the system for information about the
-publicly (within that network) available content. Jesse's search engine was
-built to take advantage of this technology. It used Microsoft's network file
-system to build an index of all the files available within the RPI network.
-</p><p>
-Jesse's wasn't the first search engine built for the RPI network. Indeed,
-his engine was a simple modification of engines that others had built. His
-single most important improvement over those engines was to fix a bug within
-the Microsoft file-sharing system that could cause a user's computer to
-crash. With the engines that existed before, if you tried to access a file
-through a Windows browser that was on a computer that was off-line, your
-computer could crash. Jesse modified the system a bit to fix that problem,
-by adding a button that a user could click to see if the machine holding the
-file was still on-line.
-</p><p>
-Jesse's engine went on-line in late October. Over the following six months,
-he continued to tweak it to improve its functionality. By March, the system
-was functioning quite well. Jesse had more than one million files in his
-directory, including every type of content that might be on users'
-computers.
-</p><p>
-
-Thus the index his search engine produced included pictures, which students
-could use to put on their own Web sites; copies of notes or research; copies
-of information pamphlets; movie clips that students might have created;
-university brochures—basically anything that users of the RPI network
-made available in a public folder of their computer.
-</p><p>
-But the index also included music files. In fact, one quarter of the files
-that Jesse's search engine listed were music files. But that means, of
-course, that three quarters were not, and—so that this point is
-absolutely clear—Jesse did nothing to induce people to put music files
-in their public folders. He did nothing to target the search engine to these
-files. He was a kid tinkering with a Google-like technology at a university
-where he was studying information science, and hence, tinkering was the
-aim. Unlike Google, or Microsoft, for that matter, he made no money from
-this tinkering; he was not connected to any business that would make any
-money from this experiment. He was a kid tinkering with technology in an
-environment where tinkering with technology was precisely what he was
-supposed to do.
-</p><p>
-On April 3, 2003, Jesse was contacted by the dean of students at RPI. The
-dean informed Jesse that the Recording Industry Association of America, the
-RIAA, would be filing a lawsuit against him and three other students whom he
-didn't even know, two of them at other universities. A few hours later,
-Jesse was served with papers from the suit. As he read these papers and
-watched the news reports about them, he was increasingly astonished.
-</p><p>
-"It was absurd," he told me. "I don't think I did anything wrong. . . . I
-don't think there's anything wrong with the search engine that I ran or
-. . . what I had done to it. I mean, I hadn't modified it in any way that
-promoted or enhanced the work of pirates. I just modified the search engine
-in a way that would make it easier to use"—again, a <span class="emphasis"><em>search
-engine</em></span>, which Jesse had not himself built, using the Windows
-filesharing system, which Jesse had not himself built, to enable members of
-the RPI community to get access to content, which Jesse had not himself
-created or posted, and the vast majority of which had nothing to do with
-music.
-</p><p>
-
-But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a network and
-had therefore "willfully" violated copyright laws. They demanded that he pay
-them the damages for his wrong. For cases of "willful infringement," the
-Copyright Act specifies something lawyers call "statutory damages." These
-damages permit a copyright owner to claim $150,000 per infringement. As the
-RIAA alleged more than one hundred specific copyright infringements, they
-therefore demanded that Jesse pay them at least $15,000,000.
-</p><p>
-Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one other
-student at RPI, one at Michigan Technical University, and one at
-Princeton. Their situations were similar to Jesse's. Though each case was
-different in detail, the bottom line in each was exactly the same: huge
-demands for "damages" that the RIAA claimed it was entitled to. If you
-added up the claims, these four lawsuits were asking courts in the United
-States to award the plaintiffs close to $100
-<span class="emphasis"><em>billion</em></span>—six times the <span class="emphasis"><em>total</em></span>
-profit of the film industry in 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2727105" href="#ftn.id2727105" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-Jesse called his parents. They were supportive but a bit frightened. An
-uncle was a lawyer. He began negotiations with the RIAA. They demanded to
-know how much money Jesse had. Jesse had saved $12,000 from summer jobs and
-other employment. They demanded $12,000 to dismiss the case.
-</p><p>
-The RIAA wanted Jesse to admit to doing something wrong. He refused. They
-wanted him to agree to an injunction that would essentially make it
-impossible for him to work in many fields of technology for the rest of his
-life. He refused. They made him understand that this process of being sued
-was not going to be pleasant. (As Jesse's father recounted to me, the chief
-lawyer on the case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, "You don't want to pay
-another visit to a dentist like me.") And throughout, the RIAA insisted it
-would not settle the case until it took every penny Jesse had saved.
-</p><p>
-
-Jesse's family was outraged at these claims. They wanted to fight. But
-Jesse's uncle worked to educate the family about the nature of the American
-legal system. Jesse could fight the RIAA. He might even win. But the cost of
-fighting a lawsuit like this, Jesse was told, would be at least $250,000. If
-he won, he would not recover that money. If he won, he would have a piece of
-paper saying he had won, and a piece of paper saying he and his family were
-bankrupt.
-</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>
-The recording industry insists this is a matter of law and morality. Let's
-put the law aside for a moment and think about the morality. Where is the
-morality in a lawsuit like this? What is the virtue in scapegoatism? The
-RIAA is an extraordinarily powerful lobby. The president of the RIAA is
-reported to make more than $1 million a year. Artists, on the other hand,
-are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $45,900.<sup>[<a name="id2727171" href="#ftn.id2727171" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and
-direct policy. So where is the morality in taking money from a student for
-running a search engine?<sup>[<a name="id2727187" href="#ftn.id2727187" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
-for RIA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
-fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
-aktivist:
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-I was definitely not an activist [before]. I never really meant to be an
-activist. . . . [But] I've been pushed into this. In no way did I ever
-foresee anything like this, but I think it's just completely absurd what the
-RIAA has done.
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Jesse's parents betray a certain pride in their reluctant activist. As his
-father told me, Jesse "considers himself very conservative, and so do
-I. . . . He's not a tree hugger. . . . I think it's bizarre that they would
-pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the wrong
-message. And he wants to correct the record."
-</p></div><div class="sect1" title='Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</h2></div></div></div><p>
-If "piracy" means using the creative property of others without their
-permission—if "if value, then right" is true—then the history of
-the content industry is a history of piracy. Every important sector of "big
-media" today—film, records, radio, and cable TV—was born of a
-kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last generation's
-pirates join this generation's country club—until now.
-</p><div class="sect2" title="Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="film"></a>Film</h3></div></div></div><p>
-
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id2727268" href="#ftn.id2727268" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast
-to California in the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that
-patents granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls
-were exercised through a monopoly "trust," the Motion Pictures Patents
-Company, and were based on Thomas Edison's creative property—patents.
-Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this creative property gave
-him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it demanded.
-</p><p>
-As one commentator tells one part of the story,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-A January 1909 deadline was set for all companies to comply with the
-license. By February, unlicensed outlaws, who referred to themselves as
-independents protested the trust and carried on business without submitting
-to the Edison monopoly. In the summer of 1909 the independent movement was
-in full-swing, with producers and theater owners using illegal equipment and
-imported film stock to create their own underground market.
-</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="id2727327" href="#ftn.id2727327" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2727354"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2731390"></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-The Napsters of those days, the "independents," were companies like Fox. And
-no less than today, these independents were vigorously resisted. "Shooting
-was disrupted by machinery stolen, and `accidents' resulting in loss of
-negatives, equipment, buildings and sometimes life and limb frequently
-occurred."<sup>[<a name="id2731406" href="#ftn.id2731406" 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.
-</p><p>
-
-Of course, California grew quickly, and the effective enforcement of federal
-law eventually spread west. But because patents grant the patent holder a
-truly "limited" monopoly (just seventeen years at that time), by the time
-enough federal marshals appeared, the patents had expired. A new industry
-had been born, in part from the piracy of Edison's creative property.
-</p></div><div class="sect2" title="Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>Innspilt musikk</h3></div></div></div><p>
-Plateindustrien 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><p>
-At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for
-reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the
-law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and
-the exclusive right to control public performances of their music. In other
-words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's 1899 hit "Happy Mose,"
-the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy of the musical
-score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform it publicly.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2731469"></a><p>
-But what if I wanted to record "Happy Mose," using Edison's phonograph or
-Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear enough that I
-would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I performed in making
-this recording. And it was clear enough that I would have to pay for any
-public performance of the work I was recording. But it wasn't totally clear
-that I would have to pay for a "public performance" if I recorded the song
-in my own house (even today, you don't owe the Beatles anything if you sing
-their songs in the shower), or if I recorded the song from memory (copies in
-your brain are not—yet— regulated by copyright law). So if I
-simply sang the song into a recording device in the privacy of my own home,
-it wasn't clear that I owed the composer anything. And more importantly, it
-wasn't clear whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of
-those recordings. Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively
-pirate someone else's song without paying its composer anything.
-</p><p>
-
-The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about this capacity to
-pirate. As South Dakota senator Alfred Kittredge put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an opera. A
-publisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and copyrights
-it. Along come the phonographic companies and companies who cut music rolls
-and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the composer and publisher
-without any regard for [their] rights.<sup>[<a name="id2731515" href="#ftn.id2731515" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
-were "sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of American
-composers,"<sup>[<a name="id2731538" href="#ftn.id2731538" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the "music publishing
-industry" was thereby "at the complete mercy of this one
-pirate."<sup>[<a name="id2731548" href="#ftn.id2731548" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As John Philip Sousa put it,
-in as direct a way as possible, "When they make money out of my pieces, I
-want a share of it."<sup>[<a name="id2731559" href="#ftn.id2731559" 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 "it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of automatic
-music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had before their
-introduction." Rather, the machines increased the sales of sheet
-music.<sup>[<a name="id2731577" href="#ftn.id2731577" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the innovators
-argued, the job of Congress was "to consider first the interest of [the
-public], whom they represent, and whose servants they are." "All talk about
-`theft,'" the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company wrote, "is
-the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas musical, literary
-or artistic, except as defined by statute."<sup>[<a name="id2731583" href="#ftn.id2731583" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
-</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 "mechanical reproductions" 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 "compulsory license," but I will refer
-to it as a "statutory license." 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="id2731642"></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="id2727293" href="#ftn.id2727293" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2731694"></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,
-</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="id2731726" href="#ftn.id2731726" 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="sect2" title="Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="radio"></a>Radio</h3></div></div></div><p>
-Radio was also born of piracy.
-</p><p>
-When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a "public
-performance" of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2731762" href="#ftn.id2731762" 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.
-</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 "Happy Birthday" 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="id2731836"></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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
-This difference can be huge. Imagine you compose a piece of music. Imagine
-it is your first. You own the exclusive right to authorize public
-performances of that music. So if Madonna wants to sing your song in public,
-she has to get your permission.
-</p><p>
-Imagine she does sing your song, and imagine she likes it a lot. She then
-decides to make a recording of your song, and it becomes a top hit. Under
-our law, every time a radio station plays your song, you get some money. But
-Madonna gets nothing, save the indirect effect on the sale of her CDs. The
-public performance of her recording is not a "protected" right. The radio
-station thus gets to <span class="emphasis"><em>pirate</em></span> the value of Madonna's work
-without paying her anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2731887"></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="sect2" title="Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="cabletv"></a>Kabel-TV</h3></div></div></div><p>
-
-Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
-</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="id2731921"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2731937"></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 "unfair and
-potentially destructive competition."<sup>[<a name="id2731949" href="#ftn.id2731949" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup>
-There may have been a "public interest" 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, "Does public
-interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?"<sup>[<a name="id2731965" href="#ftn.id2731965" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another broadcaster put it,
-</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="id2731982" href="#ftn.id2731982" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable enough:
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-All we are asking for is a very simple thing, that people who now take our
-property for nothing pay for it. We are trying to stop piracy and I don't
-think there is any lesser word to describe it. I think there are harsher
-words which would fit it.<sup>[<a name="id2732006" href="#ftn.id2732006" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Disse var "gratispassasjerer", sa presidenten Charlton Heston i Screen
-Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"<sup>[<a name="id2732024" href="#ftn.id2732024" 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="id2732051" href="#ftn.id2732051" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2732069"></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 "pirated." 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 "piracy" of the value created by broadcasters' content.
-</p><p>
-These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy" means using value
-from someone else's creative property without permission from that
-creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2732056" href="#ftn.id2732056" 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><div class="sect1" title='Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</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 "taking" 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
-"piracy," 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="sect2" title="Piracy I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="piracy-i"></a>Piracy I</h3></div></div></div><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="id2732133" href="#ftn.id2732133" 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>
-This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
-in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
-book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
-</p><p>
-Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
-it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
-years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
-were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
-hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
-treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
-treated as right.
-</p><p>
-That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
-taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
-works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
-permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule. The copy shops
-in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
-foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
-the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
-legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
-legal wrong as well.
-</p><p>
-
-True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
-countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose not to
-protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate nation,
-but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
-</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="id2732264" href="#ftn.id2732264" 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>
-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="id2732322" href="#ftn.id2732322" 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, "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?" 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 intangible
-are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
-</p><p>
-
-This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
-right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
-right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
-decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
-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 "take"
-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 "property" means.
-</p><p>
-Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
-piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese "steal" 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 than steal it. And hence over time, because
-that buying will benefit 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="id2732418"></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,
-for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
-companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
-service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
-lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
-</p><p>
-Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
-a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
-more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
-businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
-away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
-give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
-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.
-</p><p>
-
-
-Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
-certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
-justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
-rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
-doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
-to something that the law says he should not have. Nothing has changed to
-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 "piracy" is. Or at
-least, not all "piracy" is wrong if that term is understood in the way it is
-increasingly used today. Many kinds of "piracy" 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 "piracy" in that sense of
-the term.
-</p><p>
-This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
-concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
-understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
-to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
-</p><p>
-For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
-controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
-simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
-one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
-</p><p>
-These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
-us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
-</p></div><div class="sect2" title="Piracy II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>Piracy II</h3></div></div></div><p>
-
-The key to the "piracy" that the law aims to quash is a use that "rob[s] the
-author of [his] profit."<sup>[<a name="id2732513" href="#ftn.id2732513" 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>
-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="id2732536" href="#ftn.id2732536" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
-crew had simply put together components that had been developed
-independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732566"></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="id2732579" href="#ftn.id2732579" 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
-enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
-p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend—
-or your 20,000 best friends.
-</p><p>
-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="id2732614" href="#ftn.id2732614" 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="id2732642" href="#ftn.id2732642" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
-are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
-being "taken" 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>
-Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
-not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
-calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
-might think. So consider—a bit more carefully than the polarized
-voices around this debate usually do—the kinds of sharing that file
-sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
-</p><p>
-
-
-Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold. Vi kan derel disse ulike typene inn i
-fire typer.
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
-
-There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
-content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
-these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
-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="id2732704"></a>
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-
-
-There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
-it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
-of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
-targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending
-the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
-that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
-sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-
-
-There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
-that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
-transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
-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 "recalling" 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 zero—the same
-harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a
-local collector.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-
-
-
-
-Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
-that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
-</p></li></ol></div><p>
-Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
-</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="id2732773" href="#ftn.id2732773" 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
-question to answer—and certainly much more difficult than the current
-rhetoric around the issue suggests.
-</p><p>
-Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
-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 "theft" that is "devastating" 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, "Rather
-than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought
-it."<sup>[<a name="id2732817" href="#ftn.id2732817" 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 the answer.
-</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. "In
-the end," Cap Gemini concludes, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2732864" href="#ftn.id2732864" 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
-in particular, and society in general—or at least the society that
-inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
-the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR—the question is not simply
-whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
-<span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
-other types of sharing are.
-</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
-"net harm" 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 little
-<span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
-
-</p><p>
-Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
-sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
-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="id2732919" href="#ftn.id2732919" 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. "From 1999 to 2001, the average price
-of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19."<sup>[<a name="id2732964" href="#ftn.id2732964" 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, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2732996" href="#ftn.id2732996" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
-because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
-RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
-billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
-number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
-percent.
-</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, "What's the difference between downloading a song
-and stealing a CD?"—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 "rob[bed] the author of [his]
-profit"—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 "downloading a song and stealing a
-CD."
-</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
-industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
-</p><p>
-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="id2733020" href="#ftn.id2733020" 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>
-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="id2733077" href="#ftn.id2733077" 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="id2733124"></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 "Two Love Songs," 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 is making it
-available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with the market.
-</p><p>
-It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
-copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
-be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
-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>
-
-Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
-sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
-have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
-clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
-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 "real" 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>
-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, "This is how much we've lost," we must also ask, "How much has society
-gained from p2p sharing? What are the efficiencies? What is the content that
-otherwise would be unavailable?"
-</p><p>
-For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
-of the "piracy" that file sharing enables is plainly legal and good. And
-like the piracy I described in chapter 4, 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
-asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
-minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
-question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
-balance will be found only with time.
-</p><p>
-Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling? Er ikke angrepsmålet
-bare det du kaller type A-deling?
-</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
-one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
-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 "down to
-zero."<sup>[<a name="id2733227" href="#ftn.id2733227" 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
-that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
-law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
-percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
-with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p. The court's ruling means that
-we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
-and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
-copyright infringements caused by p2p.
-</p><p>
-Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
-industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
-of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
-law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology. In this adjustment,
-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 "mechanical reproduction" 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
-"creative property" 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 TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
-claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
-Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
-level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
-content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
-served two important goals—indeed, the two central goals of any
-copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
-the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content. Second, the law assured
-that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
-distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
-copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
-holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
-new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
-broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
-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="id2733324"></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 "record" 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 infringement.
-</p><p>
-
-There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
-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 "copy me" 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 preference, Sony
-could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity for copyright
-infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal 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 "tapeworms." He warned, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2733372" href="#ftn.id2733372" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup>
-"One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and creative
-judgment," he told Congress, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2733389" href="#ftn.id2733389" 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="id2733398" href="#ftn.id2733398" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup> — a use the Court would
-later hold was not "fair." By "allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the
-means of an exemption from copyright infringementwithout creating a
-mechanism to compensate copyrightowners," Valenti testified, Congress would
-"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."<sup>[<a name="id2733306" href="#ftn.id2733306" 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 "Hollywood Circuit"—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 "the Boston Strangler of the American film industry"
-(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="id2733433" href="#ftn.id2733433" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-
-But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit. And in
-its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
-whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
-Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
-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="id2733478" href="#ftn.id2733478" 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 "taking"
-notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a pattern is clear:
-</p><div class="table"><a name="t1"></a><p class="title"><b>Tabell 2.1. Tabell</b></p><div class="table-contents"><table summary="Tabell" border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char">CASE</th><th align="char">WHOSE VALUE WAS "PIRATED"</th><th align="char">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="char">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</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></div><br class="table-break"><p>
-In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
-content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2733607" href="#ftn.id2733607" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
-throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a "free ride" 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 "piracy." In every case, Congress
-acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of the "pirates."
-In each case, Congress allowed some new technology to benefit from content
-made before. It balanced the interests at stake.
-
-</p><p>
-When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
-the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
-Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
-permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
-a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
-really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
-in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
-every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
-</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
-"has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible
-uses of his work."<sup>[<a name="id2733695" href="#ftn.id2733695" 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 been done
-<span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled into the mix
-of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
-</p><p>
-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 "stealing" 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 allow the market
-to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute content. This
-will require changes in the law, at least in the interim. These changes
-should be designed to balance the protection of the law against the strong
-public interest that innovation continue.
-</p><p>
-
-
-This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
-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
-"potential public benefits," as John Schwartz writes in <em class="citetitle">The New
-York Times</em>, "could be delayed in the P2P fight."<sup>[<a name="id2733746" href="#ftn.id2733746" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the
-copyright warriors raise a different argument. "All this hand waving about
-balance and incentives," they say, "misses a fundamental point. Our
-content," the warriors insist, "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?"
-</p><p>
-"It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>," the warriors insist. "And it
-should be protected just as any other property is protected."
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728146" href="#id2728146" 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 name="ftn.id2728273" href="#id2728273" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, "Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the
-Pepsi Generation," <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review</em> 65 (1990):
-397.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728294" href="#id2728294" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
-
-Lisa Bannon, "The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay Up,"
-<em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21 August 1996, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>; Jonathan
-Zittrain, "Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
-Speech, No One Wins," <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 24 November
-2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2728312"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728385" href="#id2728385" 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
-kreativitetsarbeide. Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
-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="id2728440"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728552" href="#id2728552" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3862784"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3760952" href="#idp3760952" 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 name="ftn.id2728643" href="#id2728643" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3770040" href="#idp3770040" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
-I am grateful to David Gerstein and his careful history, described at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>. According to Dave
-Smith of the Disney Archives, Disney paid royalties to use the music for
-five songs in <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>: "Steamboat Bill,"
-"The Simpleton" (Delille), "Mischief Makers" (Carbonara), "Joyful Hurry
-No. 1" (Baron), and "Gawky Rube" (Lakay). A sixth song, "The Turkey in the
-Straw," was already in the public domain. Letter from David Smith to Harry
-Surden, 10 July 2003, on file with author.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728687" href="#id2728687" class="para">21</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
+David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
+forfatteren.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3777936" href="#idp3777936" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
-Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, "The Mouse that
-
Ate the Public Domain," 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 name="ftn.id2728829" href="#id2728829" 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.idp3787880" href="#idp3787880" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
-Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
-initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the "average" term by
-determining the weighted average of total registrations for any particular
-year, and the proportion renewing. Thus, if 100 copyrights are registered in
-year 1, and only 15 are renewed, and the renewal term is 28 years, then the
-average term is 32.2 years. For the renewal data and other relevant data,
-see the Web site associated with this book, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #6</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728954" href="#id2728954" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
+Inntil 1976 ga åndsverksloven 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
+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.idp3821080" href="#idp3821080" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
-For an excellent history, see Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
+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 name="ftn.id2729061" href="#id2729061" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Salil K. Mehra, "Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain Why All
-the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?" <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law
-Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. "[T]here might be a collective
-economic rationality that would lead manga and anime artists to forgo
-bringing legal actions for infringement. One hypothesis is that all manga
-artists may be better off collectively if they set aside their individual
-self-interest and decide not to press their legal rights. This is
-essentially a prisoner's dilemma solved."
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729136" href="#id2729136" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
-
-The term <em class="citetitle">intellectual property</em> is of relatively
-recent origin. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). See
-also Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
-Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of
-"property" rights—copyright, patents, trademark, and
-trade-secret—but the nature of those rights is very different.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2729153"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729360" href="#id2729360" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3828376" href="#idp3828376" 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
+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.idp3838576" href="#idp3838576" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp3838768"></a> 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,
+varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter—men egenskapene til disse
+rettighetene er svært forskjellige.
+</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="idp3864248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></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.)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3867592"></a><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
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
+
+Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
+før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
+amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
+I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
+kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull. Denne rullen
+kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
+vesentlig. Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
+kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxkodakcameras"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkodakprimertheeastman"></a><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="idp3873320" href="#ftn.idp3873320" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
+<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
+</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
+gjøre. … Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
+tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
+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="idp3634760" href="#ftn.idp3634760" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp3876752"></a><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
+fremkalt. Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
+enkelt et var å bruke forbedret. Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
+eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
+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="idp3878120" href="#ftn.idp3878120" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
+samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="idp3878688" href="#ftn.idp3878688" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3879232"></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
+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="idp3874784" href="#ftn.idp3874784" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3881768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3882344"></a><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>,
+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
+vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy
+kunne ha gjort før.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3884544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
+Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre. Eastmans genialitet
+var åpenbart en viktig del. Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
+oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig. For tidlig i historien til
+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 tillatelse før han kunne fange og trykke
+hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="idp3886808" href="#ftn.idp3886808" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3888496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><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
+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="idp3859216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3891976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></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="idp3893712" href="#ftn.idp3893712" 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp3896080"></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
+var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt. Frihet var utgangspunktet. (Loven
+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="idp3897472" href="#ftn.idp3897472" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3899280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3899656"></a><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
+ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass. Kanskje
+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
+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
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3902176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3903280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3903856"></a><p>
+
+
+
+Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
+svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
+gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
+Fotografering ville eksistert. Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
+Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
+gjorde—siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3904688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3905336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3907248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3907880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3908368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><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="idxeducationinmedialiteracy"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmedialiteracy"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxexpressiontechnologiesofmedialiteracyand"></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
+godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000. I dag kan du
+få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp3915720" href="#ftn.idp3915720" 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>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3917352"></a><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
+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>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3919528"></a><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
+og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3921200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3921632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3922024"></a><p>
+Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
+TV-reklamer i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
+reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="idp3923040" href="#ftn.idp3923040" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
+viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grammatikken</span>»</span> til media. For på samme måte
+som det er en grammatikk 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
+begynnelsen) grusom media.
+</p><p>
+Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
+skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
+de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive—hvor
+vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
+oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
+forståelig—så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
+er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av oss har en følelse for hvordan
+media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren gjennom
+historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3925360"></a><p>
+Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra. Men
+selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
+Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
+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="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3928984"></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="idp3930288" href="#ftn.idp3930288" 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
+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="idp3932952" href="#ftn.idp3932952" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3934544"></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
+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
+film, så har filmen feilet.
+</p><p>
+Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren—til en som går ut over
+tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer—handler ikke om å lage
+bedre filmregissører. Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.
+I stedet, som Daley forklarer,
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
+har tilgang til en boks eller ikke. Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
+språket som boksen bruker. I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
+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
+andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
+århundre.
+</p><p>
+Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes. Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
+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
+myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
+uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp3939672" href="#ftn.idp3939672" 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="idp3940984" href="#ftn.idp3940984" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbarishstephanie"></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
+Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
+eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole. Den
+videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
+Angeles. Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
+en fiasko. Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
+mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
+visste noe om—våpen-relatert vold.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3943648"></a><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
+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
+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
+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
+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
+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
+uttrykk.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3948552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
+
+
+
+<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
+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
+mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
+du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
+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
+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
+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
+forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.…
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3954040"></a><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
+om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
+</p><p>
+
+Fordi de trengte det. Det var en grunn til å gjøre det. De trengte å si
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp3956840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3957328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3957816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3958400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3959544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></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="idp3963328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3963704"></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
+bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med
+tekst. Noen tilbød åpne brev. Det var lydopptak. Det var sinne og
+frustrasjon. Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng. Det var, kort og
+godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin
+bruker begrepet i hans bok <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, rundt en
+nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden. Det var
+ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3965720"></a><p>
+
+Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet—selv om
+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.
+</p><p>
+Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
+bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
+kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker. Dette er noe nytt i vår
+tradisjon—ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
+ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
+bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3967760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
+11. september var ikke et avvik. Det var en start. Omtrent på samme tid,
+begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
+offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog. Bloggen er en slags offentlig
+dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp3971888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></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
+offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
+politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
+ser. Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
+vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
+nødvendigvis er koblet sammen. De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
+korte. De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
+til dem. Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
+ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracyintechnologiesofexpression"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxelections"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxexpressiontechnologiesofdemocratic"></a><p>
+
+Dette er en sterk uttalelse. Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
+som den sier om blogger. Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
+for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen. Vi har
+naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp3978696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3979184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3979672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3980160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3981320"></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
+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
+enige om et enstemmig resultat for at prosessen skulle
+avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="idp3984136" href="#ftn.idp3984136" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3984856"></a><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="idp3985872" href="#ftn.idp3985872" 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>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoliticaldiscourse"></a><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="idp3988792" href="#ftn.idp3988792" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
+høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3990320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3992056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3992688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3993272"></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
+ønsker å lese. Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
+muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
+kommunikasjon. Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
+noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
+</p><p>
+Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
+Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
+Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
+venstresiden. Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
+libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger. Til og med
+blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
+det.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3995712"></a><p>
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp3996792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3997168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></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
+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
+historien opp igjen hos de store mediene. Lott ble til slutt tvunget til å
+trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="idp4000760" href="#ftn.idp4000760" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediacommercialimperativesof"></a><p>
+Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
+press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
+Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører. De må arbeide for å holde på
+oppmerksomheten. Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter. Som haier,
+må de bevege seg videre.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4003184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4003672"></a><p>
+Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begrensninger. De kan bli opphengt, de
+kan fokusere, de kan bli seriøse. Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en
+spesielt interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den
+historien. Og etter hvert som antallet lenker til en bestemt historie øker,
+så stiger den i rangeringen for historier. Folk leser det som er populært,
+og hva som er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess
+av likemanns-generert rangering.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4005184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
+
+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,
+eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
+rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4008864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4009240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4009744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4010120"></a><p>
+Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
+konsentrert (mer om dette under). Konsentrerte medier kan skjule mer fra
+offentligheten enn ikke-konsentrerte medier kan—slik CNN innrømte at
+de gjorde etter Irak-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine
+egne ansatte.<sup>[<a name="idp3982800" href="#ftn.idp3982800" 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 Irak. 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>.)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4012904"></a><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
+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="idp4014552" href="#ftn.idp4014552" 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.
+</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
+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
+dette—noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
+blogging.<sup>[<a name="idp4016704" href="#ftn.idp4016704" 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>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4023072"></a><p>
+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
+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
+vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre. Det
+er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å
+innse at han tok feil. Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere
+at noen har bevist at han tok feil. Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og
+kritikk forbedrer demokratiet. I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
+blogger der det skrives på denne måten. Når det er ti millioner, så vil det
+være noe ekstraordinært å rapportere.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4025808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4026296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4026928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4027416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4027904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4028392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4028880"></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
+sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
+demokratiet. Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
+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
+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
+Brown kaller det. Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
+fiklingen til mange andre.
+</p><p>
+Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
+programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS). FS/OSS er programvare der
+kildekoden deles ut. Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
+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
+du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
+folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, se om de kan
+forbedre den</span>»</span>. Og hver innsats er et slags læretid. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
+kildekode blir en stor lærlingsplatform.</span>»</span>.
+</p><p>
+I denne prosessen, <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.
+</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
+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,
+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="idp4039944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4040376"></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
+talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
+</p><p>
+Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
+som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
+omstridt. Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
+med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
+med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
+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 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="idp4043440" href="#ftn.idp4043440" 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>.
+</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
+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="idp4046984"></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 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.idp3873320" href="#idp3873320" 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 name="ftn.id2729388" href="#id2729388" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3634760" href="#idp3634760" 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="id2729396"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729421" href="#id2729421" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp3874664"></a> Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of
+Photography</em> (New York: Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3878120" href="#idp3878120" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729429" href="#id2729429" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3878688" href="#idp3878688" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729457" href="#id2729457" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3874784" href="#idp3874784" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729504" href="#id2729504" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3886808" href="#idp3886808" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
-For illustrative cases, see, for example, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
-v. <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
-<em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
-123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em>
-v. <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729557" href="#id2729557" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
+For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
+mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
+<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.idp3893712" href="#idp3893712" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
-Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy,"
-<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2729566"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2729574"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729602" href="#id2729602" 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="idp3894400"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp3894904"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3897472" href="#idp3897472" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
-See Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," <em class="citetitle">Law and
-Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
-"Privacy," <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48 (1960)
-398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Samsung
+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
+(1960) 398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
-cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729692" href="#id2729692" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
+sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3915720" href="#idp3915720" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
-H. Edward Goldberg, "Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You
-Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations," 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 name="ftn.id2729742" href="#id2729742" class="para">35</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>
+
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.idp3923040" href="#idp3923040" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
-(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); "Findings on Family
-and TV Study," <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May 1997, B6.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729800" href="#id2729800" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
+(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.idp3930288" href="#idp3930288" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2729808"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2729816"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729832" href="#id2729832" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp3930752"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp3931256"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3932952" href="#idp3932952" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
-Se Scott Steinberg, "Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs," E!online, 4. november
-2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-
#8</a>; "Timeline," 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 name="ftn.id2729903" href="#id2729903" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
+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.idp3939672" href="#idp3939672" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2729910"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729921" href="#id2729921" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="idp3940056"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3940984" href="#idp3940984" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
-Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730129" href="#id2730129" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
+ibid.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp3984136" href="#idp3984136" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
-America</em>, bk. 1, trans. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
-2000), ch. 16.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730216" href="#id2730216" class="para">41</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.idp3985872" href="#idp3985872" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
-Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day," <em class="citetitle">Journal of
-Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730246" href="#id2730246" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
+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.idp3988792" href="#idp3988792" 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 name="ftn.id2730309" href="#id2730309" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4000760" href="#idp4000760" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
-Noah Shachtman, "With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot," New York
-Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730190" href="#id2730190" 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.idp3982800" href="#idp3982800" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730405" href="#id2730405" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
-
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4014552" href="#idp4014552" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
-John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of Information
-Online," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci
-D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," Online
-Journalism Review, 2 February 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730435" href="#id2730435" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
-See Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?"
-<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. ("Not all news
-organizations have been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin Sites, a
-CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of the war
-on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses' request. Last year
-Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em> reporter, was
-fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a pseudonym, that
-dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.") <a class="indexterm" name="id2730467"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730629" href="#id2730629" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, "Technological Access
-Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,"
+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.idp4016704" href="#idp4016704" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4018528"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4019032"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4019408"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4019784"></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.idp4043440" href="#idp4043440" 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727105" href="#id2727105" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+</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="idp4049976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4050352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></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
+informasjonsvitenskap. Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
+laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
+videregående. Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
+for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
+nettverksalderen.
+</p><p>
+RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
+Det kobler også RPI til internettet. Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
+RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet. Men nettverket er utformet for å
+gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
+direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxgoogle"></a><p>
+
+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. 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
+til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
+i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4060248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjordanjesse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftnetworkfilesystemof"></a><p>
+Disse motorene blir muliggjort av nettverksteknologien selv. For eksempel
+har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
+søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
+det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet. Søkemotoren til
+Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien. Den brukte
+Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
+tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4063312"></a><p>
+Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
+motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget. Hans
+viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
+i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
+Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
+hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
+var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje. Jesse endret systemet litt for
+å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
+på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4065416"></a><p>
+Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober. I løpet av de følgende
+seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
+funksjonalitet. I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra. Jesse hadde mer enn
+en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
+fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4066800"></a><p>
+
+Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
+studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
+notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
+kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer—ganske enkelt alt som
+brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
+datamaskiner.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4067664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4068056"></a><p>
+Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler. Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
+som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler. Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
+tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og—slik at dette poenget er helt
+klart—Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
+i deres fellesmapper. Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
+disse filene. Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
+ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
+fiklingen målet. I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
+skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen. Han var ikke knyttet til
+noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet. Han var en
+ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
+var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4074552"></a><p>
+Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
+RPI. Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
+ville levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
+gang kjente, to av dem på andre universiteter. 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
+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
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4078416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4078904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4079544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4081112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></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 åndsverkslovene. 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 åndsverksloven 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4083808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4084432"></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
+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="idp4086440" href="#ftn.idp4086440" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4087464"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4088728"></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
+insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
+øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4090552"></a><p>
+
+Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene. De ønsket å kjempe.
+Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
+amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte. Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA. Han
+kunne til og med vinne. Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
+ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000. Hvis han vant ville han
+ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene. Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
+papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
+konkurs.
+</p><p>
+Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
+vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4091624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4093248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4093752"></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
+gjennomsnittlige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="idp4091888" href="#ftn.idp4091888" 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="idp4096192" href="#ftn.idp4096192" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4097080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4097728"></a><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
+fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
+aktivist:
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere]. Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
+være en aktivist. … [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette. Jeg
+forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
+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
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4101168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4101744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4102232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4102832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4103448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4104048"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4086440" href="#idp4086440" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
-Tim Goral, "Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
-Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages," <em class="citetitle">Professional Media Group
-LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, available at 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727171" href="#id2727171" class="para">49</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
+Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4091888" href="#idp4091888" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
-(27–2042—Musicians and Singers). See also National Endowment for
+(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 name="ftn.id2727187" href="#id2727187" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Douglas Lichtman makes a related point in "KaZaA and Punishment,"
-<em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10 September 2003, A24.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727268" href="#id2727268" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
-
-I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary
-history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 87–93, which details Edison's "adventures"
-with copyright and patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2727178"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727327" href="#id2727327" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
-
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4096192" href="#idp4096192" 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>,
+10. september 2003, A24.
+</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="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4106504"></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="idp4109616" href="#ftn.idp4109616" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regissører 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
+basert på Thomas 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.
+</p><p>
+Som en kommentator forteller en del av historien,
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
+med lisensen. Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
+refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
+forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol. Sommeren 1909
+var bevegelsen med uavhengige i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere som
+brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
+undergrunnsmarked.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4113704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4114080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4114456"></a><p>
+Med et land som så en kolossal 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, konfiskerte 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="idp4116280" href="#ftn.idp4116280" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><p>
+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="idp4119856" href="#ftn.idp4119856" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
+til å flykte til østkysten. California var fjernt nok fra Edisons
+innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
+frykte loven. Og lederne blant Hollywoods 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
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings"></a><p>
+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="idp4125368"></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
+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="idp4127064"></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
+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
+ikke—ennå—regulert av åndsverksloven). Så hvis jeg ganske
+enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsapparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
+ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe. Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
+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="idp4128808"></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="idp4130904"></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 hjernen til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
+om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="idp4132528" href="#ftn.idp4132528" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4134272"></a><p>
+Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, talentet og geniet til amerikanske
+komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="idp4135288" href="#ftn.idp4135288" 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="idp4136240" href="#ftn.idp4136240" 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="idp4137240" href="#ftn.idp4137240" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4137800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4138216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4138592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
+Disse argumentene høres omtrent ut som argumentene fra våre dager. Det samme
+gjør argumentene fra den andre siden. Oppfinnerne som utviklet det
+automatiske 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="idp4143488" href="#ftn.idp4143488" 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 <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">tyveri</span>’</span></span>»</span>, skrev
+sjefsjuristen til American Graphophone Company, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er kun nonsens, for
+det finnes ingen eiendom i musikalske idéer, skriftlig eller kunstnerisk,
+unntatt det som er definert i loven.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp4145184" href="#ftn.idp4145184" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4145984"></a><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 åndsverksloven 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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcompulsorylicense"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatutorylicenses"></a><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 åndsverksloven i 1909, sto plateselskapene
+fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
+komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrishamjohn"></a><p>
+Dette er et unntak i åndsverksloven. Når John Grisham skriver en roman så
+kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren tillatelse
+til det. Grisham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst betaling for den
+tillatelsen. Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed bestemt av Grisham og
+åndsverksloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å bruke Grishams verker
+med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4151936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4152544"></a><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 påfølgende kreativitet.<sup>[<a name="idp4112024" href="#ftn.idp4112024" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4155296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4155864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4156432"></a><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>
+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 innspilt
+musikk, at folket har fått lavere priser, bedre kvalitet og flere
+valg.<sup>[<a name="idp4159648" href="#ftn.idp4159648" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4160776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4161344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4161944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4162432"></a><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="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto"></a><p>
+Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
+</p><p>
+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="idp4166384" href="#ftn.idp4166384" 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
+fremføringen.
+</p><p>
+
+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="idp4171880"></a>
+
+
+</p><p>
+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
+rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken. Så hvis
+Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
+</p><p>
+Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
+godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
+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
+får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
+betale henne noen ting.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4176160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4176792"></a><p>
+Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
+på dette. I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer 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 valget for ham eller
+henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe uten å betale.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4178232"></a></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
+Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
+</p><p>
+
+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="idp4180496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4180896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4182352"></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="idp4183448" href="#ftn.idp4183448" 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="idp4185504" href="#ftn.idp4185504" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+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="idp4186552" href="#ftn.idp4186552" 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="idp4188288" href="#ftn.idp4188288" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4189048"></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="idp4190008" href="#ftn.idp4190008" 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>
+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 kompensasjon.<sup>[<a name="idp4099512" href="#ftn.idp4099512" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4193360"></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><p>
+Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
+ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
+</p><p>
+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 imperium delvis ved å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4195904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4196536"></a><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="idp4191848" href="#ftn.idp4191848" 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.idp4109616" href="#idp4109616" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4109808"></a> 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.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4116280" href="#idp4116280" 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 "The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion Picture
-Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws," 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, "From Edison to the Broadcast
-Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright"
-(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 name="ftn.id2731406" href="#id2731406" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
-
+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 økonomiske 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="idp4118224"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4119856" href="#idp4119856" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
-Marc Wanamaker, "The First Studios," <em class="citetitle">The Silents
-Majority</em>, archived at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731515" href="#id2731515" class="para">54</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.idp4132528" href="#idp4132528" 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).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731538" href="#id2731538" 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="idp4133576"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4135288" href="#idp4135288" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (statement of
-Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731548" href="#id2731548" class="para">56</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.idp4136240" href="#idp4136240" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (statement of
-Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731559" href="#id2731559" class="para">57</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.idp4137240" href="#idp4137240" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (statement of
-John Philip Sousa, composer).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731577" href="#id2731577" class="para">58</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.idp4143488" href="#idp4143488" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84
-(statement of Albert Walker, representative of the Auto-Music Perforating
+(uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
Company of New York).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731583" href="#id2731583" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4145184" href="#idp4145184" 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 name="ftn.id2727293" href="#id2727293" 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.idp4112024" href="#idp4112024" 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 åndsverksloven: 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 name="ftn.id2731726" href="#id2731726" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4159648" href="#idp4159648" 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 name="ftn.id2731762" href="#id2731762" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
+Endring av åndsverksloven: 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.idp4166384" href="#idp4166384" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
-See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
-the beginning, record companies printed "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast"
-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, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag:
-Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright,"
-<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 281.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2731787"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2731796"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731949" href="#id2731949" class="para">63</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 til 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="idp4168608"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4169112"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4183448" href="#idp4183448" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
+Endring i åndsverksloven—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="idp4183640"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4185504" href="#idp4185504" class="para">64</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).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731965" href="#id2731965" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
+Endring i åndsverksloven—Kabel-TV, 116 (uttalelse fra Douglas
+A. Anello, sjefsjuristen i Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4186552" href="#idp4186552" class="para">65</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 name="ftn.id2731982" href="#id2731982" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
+Endring i åndsverksloven—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.idp4188288" href="#idp4188288" class="para">66</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 name="ftn.id2732006" href="#id2732006" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
+Endring i åndsverksloven—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.idp4190008" href="#idp4190008" class="para">67</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 name="ftn.id2732024" href="#id2732024" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
+Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (uttalelse fra Charlton Heston,
+president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="idp4188672"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4099512" href="#idp4099512" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
+Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
+fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="idp4190200"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4191848" href="#idp4191848" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
-president i Screen Actors Guild).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732051" href="#id2732051" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-acting assistant attorney general). <a class="indexterm" name="id2732029"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732056" href="#id2732056" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
+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>, 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 kompensasjons—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 tvetydigheten, 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="idp4203984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
+Over hele verden, men spesielt i Asia og Øst-Europa, er det selskaper som
+ikke gjør annet enn å ta andre folks opphavsrettsbeskyttede innhold,
+kopierer det og selger det—alt dette uten tillatelse fra
+opphavsrettseieren. Musikkindustrien estimerer at de taper rundt $4,6
+milliarder hvert år på fysisk piratvirksomhet <sup>[<a name="idp4192040" href="#ftn.idp4192040" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (det blir ca. en av tre CD-er solgt på verdensbasis). MPAA
+estimerer at de taper $3 milliarder på verdensbasis på piratvirksomhet.
+</p><p>
+Dette er enkelt og greit piratvirksomhet. Ingenting i argumentet i denne
+boken, og heller ikke i argumentet til de fleste folkene som omtaler temaet
+i denne boken, bør trekke i tvil dette enkle poenget: Slik piratvirksomhet
+er galt.
+</p><p>
+Hvilket ikke er å si at unnskyldninger og begrunnelser ikke kan lages for
+det. Vi kan, for eksempel, minne oss selv om at for de første hundre årene
+USA har vært republikk, respekterte ikke USA utenlandske
+opphavsrettigheter. Vi ble på en måte skapt som en piratnasjon. Det kan
+dermed synes hyklersk for oss å insistere så sterkt at andre utviklingsland
+skal behandle som galt det vi, for de første hundre årene vi eksisterte,
+behandlet som riktig.
+</p><p>
+Denne unnskyldningen er ikke veldig vektig. Teknisk sett forbød ikke vårt
+lovverk å ta utenlandske verker. Det begrenset seg eksplisitt til
+amerikanske verker. Dermed brøt de amerikanske forleggerne som publiserte
+utenlandske verker uten tillatelse fra de utenlandske forfattere noen
+regler. Kopierings-selskapene i Asia bryter derimot loven i Asia. Loven i
+Asia beskytter utenlandsk opphavsrett, og aktiviteten til
+kopierings-selskapene bryter den loven. Så det at piratvirksomheten er galt
+er ikke bare moralsk galt, men juridisk galt. Og ikke bare galt i følge
+internasjonal lovgiving, men også juridisk galt etter lokal lovgiving.
+</p><p>
+
+Joda, disse reglene har i praksis blitt påtvunget disse landene. Intet land
+kan være del av verdensøkonomien og velge å ikke beskytte opphavsrett
+internasjonalt. Vi ble kanskje skapt som en piratnasjon, men vi tillater
+ingen annen nasjon å ha en tilsvarende barndom.
+</p><p>
+Men likevel, hvis et land skal behandles som selvstendig da er landets lover
+landets lover, uavhengig av deres kilde. De internasjonale lovene som disse
+landene lever under gir dem noen muligheter til å slippe unna byrden til
+immaterielle rettighetslover.<sup>[<a name="idp4211776" href="#ftn.idp4211776" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> Etter
+mitt syn burde flere utviklingsland utnytte den muligheten, men når de ikke
+gjør det bør deres lover likevel respekteres. Og i følge lovene i disse
+landene, er piratvirksomhet galt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4214648"></a><p>
+Alternativt, så kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten ved å
+legge merke til at det uansett ikke skader industrien. Kineserne som får
+tilgang til amerikanske CDer for 50 cent pr. utgave er ikke folk som ville
+kjøpt disse CDene for #15 per utgave. Så ingen har egentlig noe mindre
+penger enn de ellers ville hatt.<sup>[<a name="idp4215832" href="#ftn.idp4215832" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+Dette er ofte riktig (selv om jeg har venner som har kjøpt flere tusen
+piratkopierte DVDer og som helt klart har nok penger til å betale for
+innholdet de har tatt), og det begrenser til en hvis grad skaden forårsaket
+av å ta på denne måten. Ekstremister i denne debatten elsker å si,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ville ikke gå inn på Barnes & Noble og ta en bok fra hyllen
+der uten å betale. Hvorfor skulle det være noe annerledes med musikk på
+nettet?</span>»</span> Forskjellen er, naturligvis, at når du tar en bok fra Barnes
+& Noble så er det en mindre bok som kan selges. Dette er forskjellig
+fra når du tar en MP3 fra et datanettverk, der det ikke blir en mindre CD
+som kan selges. Fysikken til røving av det uhåndgripelige er forskjellig
+fra fysikken til røving av det håndgripelige.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4219928"></a><p>
+
+Dette er likevel et veldig dårlig argument. For selv om opphavsretten er en
+eiendomsrett av en veldig spesiell type, så <span class="emphasis"><em>er</em></span> det en
+eiendomsrett. På samme måte som med alle eiendomsretter gir opphavsretten
+eieren retten til å bestemme vilkårene for når innholdet blir delt. Hvis
+opphavsrettseieren ikke ønsker å selge, så må hun ikke det. Det finnes
+unntak: viktige lovbestemte lisenser som gjelder for opphavsrettsbeskyttet
+innhold uavhengig av ønsket til opphavsrettseieren. Disse lisensene gir
+folk retten til å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold uavhengig
+av om opphavsrettseieren ønsker å selge eller ikke. Men der loven ikke gir
+folk retten til å ta innhold, så er det galt å ta det innholdet selv om det
+ikke gjør noen skade å gjøre dette gale. Hvis vi har et eiendomssystem og
+det systemet er skikkelig balansert opp mot teknologien i tiden, så er det
+galt å ta eiendom uten tillatelse fra eiendomseieren. Det er nøyaktig hva
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> betyr.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4222968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4223344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4223848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4224336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4224712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4225088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4225632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4226008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4226552"></a><p>
+Til slutt kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten med argumentet
+om at piratvirksomheten faktisk hjelper opphavsrettseieren. Når kineserne
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Windows, så gjør det kineserne avhengig av
+Microsoft. Microsoft mister verdien til programvaren som ble tatt, men det
+vinner brukere som er vant til livet i Microsoft-verdenen. Over tid, etter
+hvert som nasjonen blir mer velstående, vil flere og flere folk kjøpe
+programvare is stedet for å stjele den. Og dermed vil det over tid, på
+grunn av at disse kjøpene kommer Microsoft til gode, vil Microsoft tjene på
+piratvirksomheten. Hvis kineserne i stedet for å piratkopiere Windows,
+brukte det fritt tilgjengelige operativsystemet GNU/Linux, så ville disse
+kinesiske brukerne ikke til slutt kjøpe Microsoft. Uten piratvirksomheten
+ville dermed Microsoft tape.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4229184"></a><p>
+Det er også noe sant i dette argumentet. Å gjøre folk avhengig er en god
+strategi. Mange selskaper praktiserer det. Noen gjør det godt på grunn av
+det. Juss-studenter, for eksempel, får gratis tilgang til de to største
+juridiske databasene. Begge selskapenes markedsfører dette i håp om at
+studentene vil bli så vant til deres tjenester at de vil ønske å bruke deres
+tjeneste og ikke konkurrentens når de blir advokater (og må betale høy
+abonnementsavgift).
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4230552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4230928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4231304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4231680"></a><p>
+Likevel er ikke dette argumentet spesielt overbevistende. Vi gir ikke
+alkoholikeren et forsvar når han stjeler sin første øl, kun på grunn av at
+det vil gjøre det mer sannsynlig at han vil betale for de tre neste. I
+stedet lar vi vanligvis bedrifter bestemme selv når det er best for dem å gi
+bort deres produkter. Hvis Microsoft frykter konkurransen fra GNU/Linux, så
+kan Microsoft gi bort produktet sitt, slik de for eksempel gjorde med
+Internet Explorer for å bekjempe Netscape. En eiendomsrett betyr å la
+eiendomseieren ha retten til å si hvem som får tilgang til hva—i hvert
+fall vanligvis. Og hvis loven ordentlig balanserer rettighetene til
+opphavsrettighetseieren med rettighetene for tilgang, så er det å bryte
+loven fortsatt galt.
+</p><p>
+
+
+Dermed, selv om jeg forstår dragningen mot disse begrunnelsene for
+piratvirksomhet, og helt klart ser motivasjonen, så er konklusjonen etter
+mitt syn til slutt, at disse forsøkene på å begrunne kommersiell
+piratvirksomhet ganske enkelt ikke holder. Denne typen piratvirksomhet er
+krampaktig og ganske enkelt galt. Den endrer ikke innholdet den stjeler,
+den endrer ikke markedet den konkurrerer i. Den gir kun noen tilgang til noe
+som loven sier at han ikke skulle hatt. Ingenting har endret for å skape
+tvil om loven. Denne formen for piratvirksomhet er rett ut galt.
+</p><p>
+Men som eksemplene fra de fire kapitlene som introduserte denne delen
+foreslår, selv om noe piratvirksomhet helt klart er galt, er ikke all
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> galt. Eller i det minste er ikke all
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> galt hvis uttrykket skal forstås slik det i
+stadig større grad blir brukt i dag. Mange typer
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er nyttig og produktivt, enten for å
+produsere nytt innhold eller nye måter å drive forretninger. Hverken vår
+tradisjon eller noen annen tradisjon har noen sinne bannlyst all
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i den betydningen av uttrykket.
+</p><p>
+Dette betyr ikke at det ikke er reist noen spørsmål på grunn av den nyeste
+piratvirksomhetsbekymringen, peer-to-peer-fildeling. Men det betyr at vi
+trenger å forstå skaden i peer-to-peer-deling litt mer før vi dømmer den til
+galgen med anklager om piratvirksomhet.
+</p><p>
+For (1) på samme måte som det opprinnelige Hollywood, rømmer p2p-fildeling
+fra en altfor kontrollerende industri og (2) på samme måte som den
+opprinnelige innspillingsindustrien, ganske enkelt utnytter den nye måter å
+spre innhold på, men (3) til forskjell fra kabel-TV er det ingen som selger
+innholdet som blir delt med p2p-tjenester.
+</p><p>
+Disse forskjellene skiller p2p-deling fra virkelig
+piratvirksomhet. Forskjellen bør få oss til å finne en måte å beskytte
+kunstnerne mens vi gjør det mulig for denne delingen å overleve.
+</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>
+
+Nøkkelen til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> som loven tar sikte på å
+skvise er den bruken som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
+overskuddet</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp4240248" href="#ftn.idp4240248" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> Dette betyr vi må
+avgjøre hvorvidt og hvor mye p2p-deling skader før vi vet hvor sterkt loven
+bør søke å enten hindre det eller finne et alternativ for å sikre
+forfatteren hans overskudd.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4241520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4241896"></a><p>
+Peer-to-peer-deling ble gjort berømt av Napster. Men oppfinnerne av
+Napster-teknologien hadde ikke gjort noen store teknologiske nyskapninger.
+Som ethvert stort steg i nyskapningen på internettet (og, kan det
+argumenteres for, utenfor internettet<sup>[<a name="idp4242912" href="#ftn.idp4242912" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>)
+hadde Shawn Fanning og hans bemanning ganske enkelt satt sammen deler som
+hadde blitt utviklet uavhengig av hverandre.
+</p><p>
+Resultatet var en eksplosjon. Etter lansering i juli 1999, samlet Napster
+over 10 millioner brukere i løpet av ni måneder. Etter atten måneder var
+det nesten 80 millioner registrerte brukere av systemet.<sup>[<a name="idp4246056" href="#ftn.idp4246056" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Rettsaker skjøt Napster raskt ned, men andre
+tjenester dukket opp for å overta plassen. (Kazaa er for tiden den mest
+populære p2p-tjenesten. Den skryter av over 100 millioner medlemmer.)
+Disse tjenestene har en anderledes arkitektur selv om de ikke er veldig
+forskjellige i funksjon: Hver av dem gjør det mulig for brukerne å gjøre
+innhold tilgjengelig til et ubegrenset antall andre brukere. Med et
+p2p-system kan du dele dine favorittsanger med dine beste venner—
+eller dine 20 000 beste venner.
+</p><p>
+I følge en rekke estimater har en stor andel av amerikanere testet
+fildelings-teknologi. En studie av Ipsos-Insight i september 2002 estimerte
+at 60 millioner amerikanere har lastet ned musikk—28 prosent av
+amerikanerne over 12.<sup>[<a name="idp4249232" href="#ftn.idp4249232" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> En
+spørreundersøkelse fra NPD-gruppen sitert i <em class="citetitle">The New York
+Times</em> estimerte at 43 millioner innbyggere brukte
+fildelingsnettverk for å utveksle innhold i mai 2003.<sup>[<a name="idp4251136" href="#ftn.idp4251136" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> De aller fleste av dem er ikke unger. Uansett hva
+de egentlige tallene er, en massiv mengde innhold blir <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tatt</span>»</span>
+på disse nettverkene. Enkelheten og den lave kostnaden til
+fildelingsnettverkene har inspirert millioner til å nyte musikk på måter de
+ikke før hadde gjort.
+</p><p>
+Noe av denne nytelsen involverer brudd på opphavsretten. Noe av den gjør
+det ikke. Og selv for den delen som teknisk sett er brudd på opphavsretten
+er det å beregne den faktiske skaden påført opphavsrettseierne mer
+komplisert enn en skulle tro. Vurder—litt mer nøye enn de polariserte
+stemmene i denne debatten vanligvis gjør—de ulike typer deling som
+fildeling muliggjør, og hva slags skader de innebærer.
+</p><p>
+
+
+Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold. Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
+fire typer.
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4254792"></a><p>
-See, for example, 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>. "The threat of
-piracy—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
-compensation—has grown with the Internet."
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732133" href="#id2732133" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe
+innhold. Dermed vil disse i stedet for å kjøpe den når en ny Madonna-CD
+blir gitt ut, ganske enkelt ta den. Vi kan diskutere om alle som tar den
+ville ha kjøpt den hvis deling ikke gjorde den gratis tilgjengelig. De
+fleste ville sannsynligvis ikke det, men det er åpenbart noen som ville
+det. Den siste gruppen er målet for kategori A: Brukere som laster ned i
+stedet for å kjøpe.
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-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, "Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,"
-<em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732264" href="#id2732264" 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
-Press, 2003), 10–13, 209. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
-Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
-administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
-a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
-may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
-of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
-countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
-permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
-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="id2731584"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732322" href="#id2732322" 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. "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." Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732273"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732513" href="#id2732513" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
+Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk til å teste musikk før de kjøper
+den. For eksempel kan noen sende en en MP3 til en av sine venner med en
+artist han aldri har hørt om. Denne vennen kjøper så CDer av denne
+artisten. Dette er en slags målrettet reklame som har stor suksessrate.
+Hvis en venn som anbefaler albumet ikke har noen fordeler av å gi en dårlig
+anbefaling, så kan en forvente at anbefalingene faktisk vil være ganske
+gode. Totaleffekten av denne delingen kan øke mengden musikk som blir
+kjøpt.
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
-Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732536" href="#id2732536" 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="id2732332"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732579" href="#id2732579" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Carolyn Lochhead, "Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,"
-<em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24 September 2002, A1; "Rock
-'n' Roll Suicide," <em class="citetitle">New Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42;
-Benny Evangelista, "Napster Names CEO, Secures New Financing,"
-<em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; "Napster's
-Wake-Up Call," <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
-Naughton, "Hollywood at War with the Internet" (London)
-<em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732614" href="#id2732614" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
-
-
-
-See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
-Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
-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 name="ftn.id2732642" href="#id2732642" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Amy Harmon, "Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight," <em class="citetitle">New
-York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732773" href="#id2732773" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
-
-See Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
-148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732554"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732817" href="#id2732817" 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 "Home taping is killing music." 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 name="ftn.id2732864" href="#id2732864" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
+Det er mange som bruker delingsnettverk for å få tilgang til
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold som ikke lenger er til salgs, eller som de
+ikke ville ha kjøpt på grunn av at transaksjonskostnadene på nettet er for
+høye. Denne bruken av delingsnettverk er blant det mange finner mest
+givende. Sanger som var del av din barndom men som har forsvunnet fra
+markedsplassen dukker magisk opp igjen på nettet. (En venn fortalte meg at
+da hun oppdaget Napster, tilbrakte hun en hel helg med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å
+mimre</span>»</span> over gamle sanger. Hun var overrasket over omfanget og
+variasjonen i innhold som var tilgjengelig. For innhold som ikke blir
+solgt, så er dette fortsatt teknisk sett brudd på opphavsretten, selv om på
+grunn av at opphavsrettseieren ikke selger innholdet lenger så er den
+økonomiske skaden null—den samme skaden som inntreffer når jeg selger
+min samling med 45-rpm grammofonplater fra 1960-tallet til en lokal samler.
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732919" href="#id2732919" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
-Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
-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>:
-"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)."
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732964" href="#id2732964" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
-Jane Black, "Big Music's Broken Record," 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="id2732978"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732996" href="#id2732996" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
-Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733020" href="#id2733020" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+Til slutt er det mange som bruker delingsnettverk for å få tilgang til
+innhold som ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet eller der opphavsrettseieren
+ønsker å gi det bort.
+</p></li></ol></div><p>
+Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
+</p><p>
+La oss starte med noen enkle men viktige poeng. Fra lovens perspektiv er
+det kun type-D-deling som helt klart er lovlig. Fra et økonomisk perspektiv
+er det kun type-A-deling som helt klart forårsaker skade.<sup>[<a name="idp4261256" href="#ftn.idp4261256" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type-B-deling er ulovlig men gir klare fordeler.
+Type-C-deling er ulovlig, men bra for samfunnet (siden mer eksponering til
+musikk er bra) og skadelig for artistene (siden verket ellers ikke er
+tilgjengelig. Så det er vanskelig å avgjøre hvordan deling kommer ut totalt
+sett—og helt klart mye vanskeligere enn den gjeldende retorikken rundt
+temaet foreslår.
+</p><p>
+Hvorvidt deling er skadelig totalt sett er mye avhengig av hvor skadelig
+type-A-deling er. Slik Edison klaget over Hollywood, komponister klaget
+over pianoruller, plateartister klaget over radio og kringkastere klaget
+over kabel-TV, klager musikkindustrien over at type-A-deling er en slags
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tyveri</span>»</span> som vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ødelegge</span>»</span> industrien.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassette"></a><p>
+Mens disse tallene jo foreslår at deling er skadelig, så er det vanskeligere
+å finne ut hvor skadelig det er. Det har lenge vært praksis for
+platebransjen å skylde på teknologi for all nedgang i salg. Historien til
+kassettopptak er et godt eksempel. Som et studie av Cap Gemini Ernst &
+Young formulerer det: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I stedet for å utforske denne nye populære
+teknologien, sloss selskapene imot den.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp4265720" href="#ftn.idp4265720" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> Selskapene påsto at hvert album som ble tatt opp på kassett var et
+album som ikke ble solgt, og da platesalget falt med 11,4 prosent i 1981,
+påsto industrien at dets poeng var bevist. Teknologien var problemet, og
+forbud eller regulering av teknologien var svaret.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4269096"></a><p>
+Ikke lenge etterpå, og før kongressen fikk muligheten til å innføre
+reguleringer, ble MTV lansert, og industrien fikk et
+rekordoppsving. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Til slutt</span>»</span>, konkluderte Cap Gemini, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var
+ikke <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">krisen</span>’</span> … forårsaket av de som tok opp på
+kassett—som ikke [sluttet etter at MTV dukket opp]—men hadde i
+stor grad vært resultatet av en stagnasjon i musikknyskapningen hos de store
+selskapene.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp4216616" href="#ftn.idp4216616" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4271680"></a><p>
+Men det at industrien har tatt feil før betyr ikke at de tar feil i dag.
+For å evaluere den virkelige trusselen som p2p-deling representerer for
+industrien spesielt, og samfunnet generelt—eller i hvert fall det
+samfunnet som arvet tradisjonen som ga oss filmindustrien, plateindustrien,
+radioindustrien, kabel-TV og videospilleren—så er ikke spørsmålet kun
+om type-A-deling er skadelig. Spørsmålet er også <span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span>
+skadelig type-A-deling er, og hvor nyttige de andre typene deling er.
+</p><p>
+Vi går igang med å svare på dette spørsmålet ved å fokusere på netto skade,
+sett fra industrien som helhet, som delingsnettverkene forårsaker.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Netto skade</span>»</span> for industrien som helhet er verdien av
+type-A-deling som overgår type B. Hvis plateselskapene solgte flere plater
+som resultat av at folk testet musikken enn de taper gjennom at en lar være
+å kjøpe, så har delingsnettverkene totalt sett faktisk vært til fordel for
+musikkselskapene. De ville dermed ha liten <span class="emphasis"><em>*static*</em></span>
+grunn til å motarbeide dem.
+
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdssales"></a><p>
+Kan det være riktig? Kan industrien som helhet øke i omfang på grunn av
+fildeling? Selv om det kan høres rart ut, så foreslår faktisk salgstall for
+CD-er at det ikke er langt unna sannheten.
+</p><p>
+I 2002 rapporterte RIAA at CD-salg hadde falt med 8,9 prosent, fra 882
+millioner til 803 millioner enheter, og inntektene hadde falt 6,7
+prosent.<sup>[<a name="idp4276656" href="#ftn.idp4276656" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> Dette bekrefter en trend fra
+de siste årene. RIAA skylder på piratvirksomhet på internett for denne
+trenden, selv om det er mange andre årsaker som kan forklare denne
+reduksjonen. SoundScan rapporterte for eksempel om en reduksjon på over 20
+prosent siden 1999 når det gjelder antall CD-er er gitt ut Dette er uten
+tvil årsaken til noe av nedgangen i salget. Stigende priser kan også ha
+bidratt til noe av tapet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fra 1999 til 201 steg den gjennomsnittlige
+prisen for en CD med 7,2 prosent, fra $13,04 til $14,19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp4280216" href="#ftn.idp4280216" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Konkurranse fra andre typer media kan også forklare
+noe av nedgangen. Som Jane Black i <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em>
+kommenterer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Lydsporet for filmen <em class="citetitle">High
+Fidelity</em> har en listepris på $19,98. Du kan få hele filmen [på
+DVD] for $19,99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp4282576" href="#ftn.idp4282576" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+
+
+
+Men la oss anta at RIAA har rett, at all nedgangen i CD-salg er forårsaket
+av deling på internett. Her er hvor det skurrer: I samme periode som RIAA
+estimerer at 803 milloner CDer ble solgt, estimerer RIAA at 2,1 milliarder
+CD-er ble lastet ned gratis. Dermed selv om 2,6 ganger det totale antallet
+CDer ble lastet ned gratis, så falt salgsinntektene med kun 6,7 prosent.
+</p><p>
+Det er for mange ulike ting som skjer samtidig til å forklare disse tallene
+med sikkerhet, men en konklusjon er uunngåelig: Musikkindustrien spør
+stadig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hva er forskjellen mellom å laste ned en sang og å stjele en
+CD?</span>»</span>—men deres egne tall avslører forskjellen. Hvis jeg
+stjeler en CD, så er det en mindre CD å selge. Hvert eneste som blir tatt
+er et tapt salg. Men basert på tallene som RIAA gjør tilgjengelig, så er
+det helt klart at det samme ikke er sant for nedlastinger. Hvis hver
+nedlasting var et tapt salg—hvis hver bruk av Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fratok
+forfatteren overskuddet</span>»</span>—da skulle industrien vært påført 100
+prosent reduksjon i salg i fjor, ikke e 7 prosents nedgang. Hvis 2,6 ganger
+antallet solgte CDer ble lastet ned gratis, og salgsinntektene kun ble
+redusert med 6,7 prosent, så er det en stor forskjell mellom å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">laste
+ned en sang og å stjele en CD</span>»</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4286360"></a><p>
+Dette er skadene—påståtte og muligens overdrevende men, la oss anta at
+de er reelle. Hva er fordelene? Fildeling påfører muligens kostnader for
+plateindustrien. Hva slags verdi gir det i tillegg til disse kostnadene?
+</p><p>
+En fordel er type-C-deling—å gjøre innhold tilgjengelig som teknisk
+sett fortsatt er opphavsrettsbeskyttet men som ikke lenger er kommersielt
+tilgjengelig. Dette er ikke en liten kategori med innhold Det er millioner
+av spor som ikke lenger er kommersielt tilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="idp4286976" href="#ftn.idp4286976" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup> Og mens det kan tenkes at noe av dette innholdet
+ikke er tilgjengelig fordi artisten som laget innholdet ikke ønsker at det
+blir gjort tilgjengelig, så er det meste av dette utilgjengelig kun fordi
+forlaget eller distributøren har bestemt at det ikke lenger gir økonomisk
+mening <span class="emphasis"><em>for selskapet</em></span> å gjøre det tilgjengelig.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4290272"></a><p>
+I den virkelige verden—lenge før internettet—hadde markedet et
+enkelt svar på dette problemet: bruktbok- og bruktplate-butikker. Det er
+tusenvis av butikker for brukte bøker og plater i Amerika i dag.<sup>[<a name="idp4290904" href="#ftn.idp4290904" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> Disse butikkene kjøper innhold fra eierne og selger
+så videre innholdet de kjøpte. Og i følge amerikansk åndsverkslov, når de
+kjøper og selger dette innholdet, <span class="emphasis"><em>selv om innholdet fortsatt er
+vernet av åndsverksloven</em></span>, så får ikke opphavsrettseieren et
+øre. Bruktbok- og bruktplatebutikkene er kommersielle aktører. Deres eiere
+tjener penger på innholdet de selger, men på samme måte som med
+kabel-TV-selskapene før lovbestemt lisensiering må de ikke betale
+opphavsrettseierene for innholdet de selger.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4295376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4295752"></a><p>
+Type-C-deling har dermed veldig mye til felles med bruktbok- og
+bruktplatebutikker. Det er naturligvis også veldig forskjellig, fordi
+personen som gjør innhold tilgjengelig tjener ikke penger på å gjøre
+innholdet tilgjengelig. Det er naturligvis også forskjellig fra i den
+virkelige verden ved at når jeg selger en plate så har jeg den ikke lenger,
+mens på nettet når jeg deler min 1949-plate av Bernsteins <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love
+Songs</span>»</span> med noen, sa har jeg den fortsatt. Denne forskjellen betyr noe
+økonomisk hvis eieren av opphavsretten selger platen i konkurranse med min
+deling. Men vi snakker om den klassen av innhold som nå ikke er kommersielt
+tilgjengelig. Internettet gjør det tilgjengelig, gjennom samarbeidende
+deling, uten å konkurrere med markedet.
+</p><p>
+Det kan godt være, når alle faktorer vurderes, at det ville vært bedre om
+opphavsrettseieren fikk noe fra denne handelen. Men det at det kunne vært
+bedre fører ikke til at det ville vært en god ide å forby bruktbokbutikker.
+Eller sagt på en annen måte, hvis du tror type-C-deling burde vært stoppet,
+mener du også at biblioteker og bruktbokhandler også burde vært stengt?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><p>
+
+Til slutt, og kanskje mest viktig, muliggjør fildelingsnettverk
+type-D-deling—delingen av innhold som opphavsrettseierne ønsker å få
+delt eller der det ikke er vert etter åndsverksloven. Denne delingen er
+klart til fordel for forfattere og samfunnet. Science fiction-forfatteren
+Cory Doctorow, for eksempel, utga sin første roman, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out
+in the Magic Kingdom</em>, både fritt tilgjengelig på nettet og i
+bokhandler på samme dag. Han (og hans forlag) mente at distribusjon på
+nettet ville være flott markedsføring for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekte</span>»</span> boken.
+Folk ville lese deler på nettet, og så bestemme seg for om de likte boken
+eller ikke. Hvis de likte den, så var det mer sannsynlig at de kjøpte
+den. Doctorows innhold er type-D-innhold. Hvis delingsnettverkene gjør det
+mulig å spre hans verk, så kommer både han og samfunnet bedre ut. (Faktisk
+så kommer de mye bedre ut: det er en god bok!)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4302160"></a><p>
+Det samme gjelder for allemannseide verk: Denne delingen gagner samfunnet
+uten noen juridisk skade mot forfattere i det hele tatt. Hvis innsats for å
+løse problemet med type-A-deling ødelegger muligheten for type-D-deling, så
+mister vi noe viktig for å beskytte type-A-innhold.
+</p><p>
+Poenget med alt dette er: Selv om plateindustrien forståelig nok sier,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er hvor mye vi har tapt</span>»</span>, så må vi også spørre oss
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvor mye har samfunnet fått igjen fra p2p-deling? Hva gjør oss mer
+effektive? Hva er innholdet som ellers ville være utilgjengelig?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+For til forskjell fra piratvirksomheten jeg beskrev i første seksjon av
+dette kapittelet, er mye av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> som fildeling
+gjør mulig klart lovlig og bra. Og i likhet med piratvirksomheten jeg
+beskrev i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, så er mye av denne piratvirksomheten motivert av de nye
+måtene å spre innhold på som er forårsaket av endringer i
+distribusjonsteknologien. Dermed, konsistent med tradisjonen som ga oss
+Hollywood, radio, plateindustrien og kabel-TV, er spørsmålet vi bør stille
+om fildeling om hvordan vi best kan bevare dets fordeler mens vi minimerer
+(så langt det er mulig) de uønskede skadene de påfører kunstnere. Spørsmålet
+er et om balanse. Loven bør strebe etter den balansen, og den balansen blir
+funnet kun etter en tid.
+</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>
+</p><p>
+En skulle tro det. Og vi bør håpe på det. Men så langt er det ikke
+tilfelle. Effekten som krigen som påstås å kun være mot type-A-deling har
+blitt kjent langt uten den klassen med deling. Det er åpenbart fra
+Napster-saken selv. Da Napster fortalte *district*-retten at den hadde
+utviklet teknologi som ville blokkere for 99,4 prosent av identifisert
+opphavsrettsbrytende materiale, fortalte *district*-retten advokatene til
+Napster at 99,4 prosent var ikke godt nok. Napster måtte få
+opphavsrettsbruddene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ned til null</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp4307896" href="#ftn.idp4307896" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+Hvis 99,4 prosent ikke er godt nok, så er dette en krig mot
+fildelingsteknologier, og ikke en krig mot opphavsrettsbrudd. Det er ikke
+mulig å sikre at et p2p-system brukes 100 prosent av tiden i henhold til
+loven, like lite som det er mulig å sikre at 100 prosent av videospillere
+eller 100 prosent av kopimaskiner eller 100 prosent av håndvåpen blir brukt
+i henhold til loven. Ingen toleranse betyr ingen p2p. Rettens avgjørelser
+betyr at vi som samfunn må miste fordelene med p2p, selv for de fullstendig
+lovlige og fordelaktige bruksområdene som de tjener, kun for å sikre at de
+ikke er brudd på opphavsretten forårsaket av p2p.
+</p><p>
+Nulltoleranse har ikke vært vår historie. Det har ikke gitt oss
+innholdsindustrien som vi kjenner i dag. Historien til amerikansk lovgiving
+har vært en prosess om balanse. Etter hvert som nye teknologier endret
+måten innhold ble spredt så har loven justert seg, etter litt tid, til å
+møte den nye teknologien. I denne justeringen har loven forsøkt å sikre
+legitime rettigheter til skaperne mens den beskytter nyskapning. Noen gang
+har det gitt mer rettigheter til skaperne, og noen ganger mindre.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4311200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4311704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4315512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4316016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4316520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4317024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4317528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4317904"></a><p>
+Dermed, slik vi har sett, når <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekanisk reprodusjon</span>»</span> truet
+interessene til komponister, balanserte kongressen rettighetene til
+komponistene mot interessene til plateindustrien. Den ga rettigheter til
+komponistene, men også til plateartistene: Komponistene skulle få betalt,
+men til en pris satt av kongressen. Men da radio begynte kringkasting av
+platene laget av disse plateartistene, og de klaget til kongressen om at
+deres <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreative eiendom</span>»</span> ikke ble respektert (siden en
+radiostasjon ikke måtte betale dem for kreativiteten den kringkastet), da
+avviste kongressen kravet. En indirekte fordel var nok.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletv2"></a><p>
+Kabel-TV fulgte samme mønster som plater. Da retten avviste kravet om at
+kabel-TV-kringkasterne måtte betale for innholdet de videre-kringkastet, så
+svarte kongressen med å gi kringkasterne rett til betaling, men på et nivå
+fastsatt av loven. De ga på samme måte kabel-TV-selskapene rett til
+innholdet, så lenge de betalte den lovbestemte prisen.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4321536"></a><p>
+
+
+
+Dette kompromisset, på samme måte som kompromisset som påvirket plater og
+automatiske piano, oppnådde to mål—faktisk de to sentrale målene i
+enhver opphavsrettslovgiving. For det første, sikret loven at nye
+oppfinnere ville ha friheten til å utvikle nye måter å levere innhold på.
+For det andre, sikret loven at opphavsrettsinnehaverne ville få betalt for
+innholdet som ble distribuert. En frykt var at hvis kongressen ganske
+enkelt krevde at kabel-TV-selskapene måte betale opphavsrettsinnehaverne
+uansett hva de krevde for sitt innhold, så ville opphavsrettsinnehaverne
+knyttet til kringkastere bruke sin makt til å hemme denne nye teknologien
+kabel-TV. Men hvis kongressen hadde tillat kabel-TV å bruke kringkasternes
+innhold uten å betale, så ville den gitt urettferdig subsidiering til
+kabel-TV. Dermed valgte kongressen en sti som ville sikre
+<span class="emphasis"><em>kompensasjon</em></span> uten å gi fortiden (kringkasterne)
+kontroll over fremtiden (kabel-TV).
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4323704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4324272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4324840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4325328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><p>
+Samme år som kongressen valgte denne balansen, gikk to store produsenter og
+distributører av filminnhold til sak mot en annen teknologi,
+videospiller/opptakeren som Sony hadde produsert, Betamax. Disneys og
+Universals påstand mot Sony var relativt enkelt: Sony produserte en enhet,
+påsto Disney og Universal, som gjorde det mulig for forbrukere å gjennomføre
+opphavsrettsbrudd. På grunn av at enheten Sony hadde laget hadde en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opptaks-knapp</span>»</span>, kunne enheten bli brukt til å ta opp
+opphavsrettsbeskyttede filmer og programmer. Sony hadde derfor fordel av
+opphavsrettsbruddene til sine kunder og skulle derfor, påsto Disney og
+Universal, være delvis ansvarlig or disse bruddene.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4327944"></a><p>
+
+Det er noe i påstandene til Disney og Universal. Sony valgte å utforme sin
+maskin slik at det var veldig enkelt å ta opp TV-programmer. De kunne ha
+bygget maskinen slik at den blokkerte eller hindret enhver direkte kopiering
+fra en TV-kringkasting. Eller så kunne de muligens ha bygget maskinen slik
+at det kun var mulig å kopiere hvis det var et spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier
+meg</span>»</span>-signal på linjen. Det var klart at det var mange TV-programmer
+som ikke ga noen tillatelse til å kopiere. Faktisk ville en, hvis en
+spurte, uten tvil fått beskjed fra flertallet av programmer at de ikke
+tillot kopiering. Og i møtet med denne åpenbare ønsket, kunne Sony ha
+utformet systemet sitt for å minimere muligheten for opphavsrettsbrudd. Det
+gjorde de ikke, og på grunn av dette ville Disney og Universal holde dem
+ansvarlig for arkitekturen de valgte.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4331160"></a><p>
+MPAA-presidenten Jack Valenti ble studioenes mest synlige
+forkjemper. Valenti kalte videospillerne for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bendelormer</span>»</span>
+(engelsk: tapeworm). Han advarte om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når det er 20, 30, 40
+millioner av disse videospillerne i landet, vil vi bli invadert av millioner
+av <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">bendelormer</span>’</span> som spiser i vei i hjertet og essensen til den
+mest verdifulle eiendelen som opphavsrettseieren har, hans
+opphavsrett</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp4332872" href="#ftn.idp4332872" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En må ikke
+være opplært i sofistikert markedsføring eller kreativ vurdering</span>»</span>,
+fortalte han kongressen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for å forstå ødeleggelsen av
+etter-kino-markedet forårsaket av de hundrevis av millioner opptak som vil
+seriøst påvirke fremtiden til det kreative miljøet i dette landet. Det er
+ganske enkelt et spørsmål om grunnleggende økonomi og enkel sunn
+fornuft.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp4334776" href="#ftn.idp4334776" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Og ganske riktig, slik
+spørreundersøkelser senere ville vise, 45 prosent av videospillereierne
+hadde filmbiblioteker som inneholdt ti filmer eller mer.<sup>[<a name="idp4335544" href="#ftn.idp4335544" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup> — en bruk som retten senere ville avgjøre
+ikke var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettferdig</span>»</span>. Ved å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillate videospillereierne
+å kopiere fritt ved hjelp av et unntak fra brudd på opphavsrettsloven uten å
+lage en mekanisme for å kompensere opphavsrettseierne</span>»</span>, forklarte
+Valenti, så ville kongressen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta fra eierne selve essensen i deres
+eiendom: den eksklusive retten til a kontrollere hvem som kan bruke deres
+verker, det vil si, hvem som kan kopiere det og dermed nyte godt at dets
+reproduksjon</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp4337688" href="#ftn.idp4337688" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+Det tok åtte år før denne saken ble avgjort av høyesterett. I mellomtiden
+hadde den niende appellsirkel, som har Hollywood i sin
+jurisdiksjon—den ledende dommeren Alex Kozinski, som er medlem i den
+domstolen, referer til den som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood-sirkelen</span>»</span>—fant
+at Sony måtte holdes ansvarlig for de opphavsrettsbruddene som ble
+muliggjort med deres maskiner. I følge niende sirkels regel var denne
+kjente teknologien—som Jack Valenti hadde omtalt som
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Boston-kveleren for amerikansk filmindustri</span>»</span> (verre enn dette,
+det var en <span class="emphasis"><em>japansk</em></span> Boston-kveler for amerikansk
+filmindustri)— var en ulovlig teknologi.<sup>[<a name="idp4339200" href="#ftn.idp4339200" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4340456"></a>
+</p><p>
+
+Men høyesterett omstøtte avgjørelsen til niende appellsirkel. Og i sin
+avgjørelse formulerte domstolen klart sin forståelse av når og om domstoler
+burde intervenere i slike konflikter. Som retten skrev,
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+Fornuftig policy, og vår historie, støtter vår konsistente henvisning til
+kongressen når store teknologiske nyvinninger endrer markedet for
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale. Kongressen har den konstituelle
+autoriteten og institusjonsevnen til å ta fullt hensyn til de forskjellige
+sammensetningene av konkurrerende interesser som uunngåelig blir involvert
+av slik ny teknologi.<sup>[<a name="idp4342504" href="#ftn.idp4342504" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4343400"></a><p>
+Kongressen ble bedt om å svare på avgjørelsen fra Høyesterett. Men på samme
+måte som med appellen fra plateartistene om radiokringkastinger, ignorerte
+kongressen denne forespørselen. Kongressen var overbevist om at Amerikansk
+film fikk nok, på tross av at det her ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tatt</span>»</span>. Hvis vi
+samler disse saken, trer et mønster frem:
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Tilfelle</th><th align="left">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span></th><th align="left">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="left">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Innspillinger</td><td align="left">Komponister</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Plateartister</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kabel-TV</td><td align="left">Kringkastere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Videospiller / opptaker</td><td align="left">Filmskapere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4351136"></a><p>
+I hvert tilfelle gjennom vår historie har ny teknologi endret hvordan
+innhold ble distribuert.<sup>[<a name="idp4351952" href="#ftn.idp4351952" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> I hvert
+tilfelle, gjennom hele vår historie, har den endringen ført til at noen ble
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjer</span>»</span> på noen andres verk.
+</p><p>
+
+I <span class="emphasis"><em>ingen</em></span> av disse tilfellene eliminerte domstolene og
+kongressen alle gratispassasjerer. I <span class="emphasis"><em>ingen</em></span> av disse
+tilfellene insisterte domstolene og kongressen at loven skulle sikre at
+opphavsrettsinnehaveren skulle få all verdi som hans opphavsrett hadde
+skapt. I hvert tilfelle klaget opphavsrettseieren om
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. I hvert tilfelle valgte kongressen å ta
+hensyn til noe av legitimiteten til oppførselen hos
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratene</span>»</span>. I hvert tilfelle tillot kongressen noe ny
+teknologi a ha fordel av innhold laget tidligere. Den balanserte
+interessene på spill.
+
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4357608"></a><p>
+Når du tenker over disse eksemplene, og de andre eksemplene som utgjør de
+første fire kapittelene i denne avdelingen, så gir denne balansen mening.
+Var Walt Disney en pirat? Ville doujinshi være bedre hvis skaperne måtte be
+om tillatelse? Bør verktøy som gjør det mulig for andre å fange og spre
+bilder som en måte å kultivere og kritisere vår kultur være bedre hvis den
+var regulert? Er det virkelig riktig at a bygge en søkemotor bør eksponere
+deg for krav om $15 millioner i erstatning. Ville det ha vært bedre om
+Edison hadde kontrollert all film? Burde et hvert cover-band måtte hyre inn
+en advokat for å få tillatelse til å spille inn en sang?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4359544"></a><p>
+Vi kunne svart ja på hvert av disse spørsmålene, men vår tradisjon har svart
+nei. I vår tradisjon, som høyesterett uttalte har opphavsretten
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">aldri gitt opphavsrettseieren fullstendig kontroll over all mulig
+bruk av hans verk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp4360848" href="#ftn.idp4360848" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup> I stedet har
+de spesifikke bruksområder som loven regulerer vært definert ved å balansere
+de goder som kommer fra å dele ut en eksklusiv rettighet mot ulempene en
+slik eksklusiv rettighet skaper. Og denne balanseringen har historisk vært
+gjort <span class="emphasis"><em>etter</em></span> at teknologien har modnet, eller landet på
+en blanding av teknologier som bidrar til distribusjonen av innhold.
+</p><p>
+Vi burde gjøre det samme i dag. Teknologien på internettet endrer seg
+raskt. Måten folk kobler seg til internettet (trådbasert eller trådløst)
+endrer seg veldig raskt. Uten tvil bør ikke nettverket bli et verktøy for
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeling</span>»</span> fra kunstnere. Men loven bør heller ikke bli et
+verktøy for å tvinge igjennom en bestemt måte som kunstnere (eller mer
+korrekt, distributører) får betalt. Som jeg beskriver i litt detalj i det
+siste kapittelet i denne boken, bør vi sikre inntekter til kunstnere mens vi
+tillater markedet å få på plass den mest effektive måten å fremme og
+distribuere innhold. Dette vil kreve endringer i loven, i hvert fall i en
+mellomperiode. Disse endringene burde utformes slik at de balanserer
+beskyttelsen gitt i loven mot den sterke folkeinteressen for at nyskapning
+fortsetter.
+</p><p>
+
+
+Dette er spesielt riktig når en ny teknologi muliggjør en svært overlegen
+måte å distribuere på. Og dette har p2p gjort. P2p-teknologier kan være
+ideelt effektivt for å flytte innhold på tvers av et stort og variert
+nettverk. Utviklet videre så kan de gjøre nettverkene mye mer effektivt.
+Likevel kan disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potensielle fordelene for folket</span>»</span>, som John
+Schwartz skriver i <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bli
+forsinket av p2p-kampen</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp4365576" href="#ftn.idp4365576" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Men når noen</strong></span> begynner å snakke om
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span>, kommer opphavsrettskrigerne med et annet argument.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All denne varme luften om balanse og insentiver</span>»</span>, sier de,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">går glipp av det fundamentale poenget. Vårt innhold</span>»</span>,
+insisterer krigerne, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er vår <span class="emphasis"><em>eiendom</em></span>. Hvorfor
+burde vi vente på at kongressen skal finne en ny balanse for våre
+eiendomsretter? Må vi vente før vi kontakter politiet når bilen vår har
+blitt stjålet? Og hvorfor burde kongressen i det hele tatt debattere nytten
+av dette tyveriet? Spør vi dem om biltyven hadde god bruk for bilen før vi
+arresterer han?</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.idp4192040" href="#idp4192040" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Se IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
+<em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
+juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#14</a>. Se også Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
+Risk</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14. februar 2003, 11.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4211776" href="#idp4211776" class="para">71</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),
+10–13, 209. Avtalen om handelsrelaterte aspektene av immaterielle
+rettigheter (TRIPS) forplikter medlemsnasjonene til å få på plass
+administrative og håndhevingsmekanismer for immaterielle rettigheter,
+hvilket er et kostbar forslag for utviklingsland. I tillegg kan
+patentrettigheter føre til høyere priser for grunnleggende industrier som
+landbruk. Kritikerne av TRIPS stiller spørsmål om avviket mellom
+belastningen den legger på utviklingland og fordelene den gir til
+industrialiserte land. TRIPS tillater myndigheter å bruke patenter til
+ikke-kommersielle formål som kommer folket til gode uten å først få
+tillatelse fra patentinnehaveren. Utviklingsland kan være i stand til å
+bruke dette til å få fordelene fra utenlandske patenter til lavere priser.
+Dette er en lovende strategi for utviklingsland innenfor
+TRIPS-rammeverket. <a class="indexterm" name="idp4143880"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4213744"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4215832" href="#idp4215832" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
+
+For en analyse av den økonomiske effekten av kopieringsteknologi, se Stan
+Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
+Amacom, 2002), 144–190. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I noen tilfeller … vil effekten
+av piratvirksomhet på opphavsrettsinnehaverens mulighet til å nyte godt av
+verdien av verket vil være neglisjerbart. Et åpenbart tilfelle er der
+individet som tar nyter godt av piratvirksomheten ikke ville ha kjøpt
+originalen selv om piratvirksomhet ikke var en mulighet.</span>»</span> Ibid.,
+149. <a class="indexterm" name="idp4217312"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4240248" href="#idp4240248" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
-By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
-longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law—Coming
-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 name="ftn.id2733077" href="#id2733077" class="para">85</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.idp4242912" href="#idp4242912" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4243104"></a> Se 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 undersøker hvorfor selskaper som gir opphav
+til og dominerer et produktområde ofte ikke er i stand til å komme opp med
+de mest kreative, paradigmeskiftende måtene å bruke deres egne produkter
+på. Denne jobben ender som oftest opp hos oppfinnere utenfra, som setter
+sammen eksisterende teknologi på nyskapende måter. For en diskusjon om
+Christensens idéer, se Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
+89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="idp4216440"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4246056" href="#idp4246056" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Se 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. juli 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. mai 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
+Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24. juni 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. juli 2002, 18.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4249232" href="#idp4249232" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
+
+
+
+Se Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
+Distribution</em> (september 2002), som rapporterer at 28 prosent av
+amerikanere eldre enn tolv år hadde lastet musikk ned fra internettet og 30
+prosent hadde lyttet til digitale musikkfiler lagred på sine datamaskiner.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4251136" href="#idp4251136" 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. juni 2003, A1.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4261256" href="#idp4261256" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
+
+Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="idp4244872"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4265720" href="#idp4265720" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4265912"></a> Se Cap Gemini Ernst & Young,
+<em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model
+Crisis</em> (2003), 3. Denne rapporten beskriver musikkindustriens
+innsats for å stigmatisere den voksende praksis med å ta opp på kassett på
+1970-tallet, inkludert en reklamekampanje med en kasse-formet hodeskalle og
+uttrykket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing music</span>»</span>. På det tidspunktet
+som digitale lydkassetter ble en trussel, utførte the Office of Technical
+Assessment en spørreundersøkelse om forbrukeroppførsel. I 1988 hadde 40
+prosent av forbrukerne eldre enn ti tatt opp musikk på et kassettformat.
+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, oktober 1989),
+145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4216616" href="#idp4216616" class="para">80</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, "2002 Annual Survey
-Results," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#20</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733227" href="#id2733227" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4276656" href="#idp4276656" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
-See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
-(N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
-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 name="ftn.id2733372" href="#id2733372" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
+Se Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
+Statistics</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. En senere rapport
+indikerer enda større tap. Se Recording Industry Association of America,
+<em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25. juni 2003,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#16</a>: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I de siste fire årene har antall utsendinger av enheter
+innspilt musikk falt med 26 prosent fra 1,16 milliarder enheter til 860
+millioner enheter i 2002 i USA (basert på antall utsendt). I salg er
+omsetning redusert med 14 prosent, fra $14,6 milliarder til $12,6 milliarder
+siste år (basert på US dollar-verdi for utsendingene). Musikkindustrien på
+verdensbasis har gått ned fra å være en $39 milliarders industri i 2000 til
+å bli en $32 milliarders industri i 2002 (basert på US dollarverdi for
+utsendinger.</span>»</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4280216" href="#idp4280216" 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="idp4281208"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4282576" href="#idp4282576" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
+
+
+ibid.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4286976" href="#idp4286976" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Et estimat forteller at 75 prosent av musikken gitt ut av de store
+plateselskapene ikke lenger trykkes opp. Se Online Entertainment and
+Copyright Law—Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Høring foran
+the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 107. kongr., 1. sesj. (3. april 2001)
+(forberedt innlegg av the Future of Music Coalition), tilgjengelig fra
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4290904" href="#idp4290904" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4291752"></a> Mens det ikke finnes noen gode
+estimater over antallet bruktplatebutikker, så var det i 2002 7 7198
+bruktbokhandler i USA, en økning på 20 prosent siden 1993. Se Book Hunter
+Press, <em class="citetitle">The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book
+Market</em> (2002), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Brukte plater
+utgjorde $260 millioner i salg i 2002. Se National Association of Recording
+Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey Results</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4307896" href="#idp4307896" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Se referat fra forhandlingene, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation ved 34-35
+(N.D. Cal., 11. juli 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#21</a>. For en oppsummering av søksmålet og dets effekt på Napster, se
+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.idp4332872" href="#idp4332872" 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
+Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): høring om S. 1758 foran
+the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97. kongr., 1. and 2. sess., 459
+(1982) (vitnesbyrd fra Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
of America, Inc.).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733389" href="#id2733389" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4334776" href="#idp4334776" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733398" href="#id2733398" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4335544" href="#idp4335544" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
-<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
+<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733306" href="#id2733306" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4337688" href="#idp4337688" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
-Valenti).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733433" href="#id2733433" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
+Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (vitnesbyrd fra
+Jack Valenti).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4339200" href="#idp4339200" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
-<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
+<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 name="ftn.id2733478" href="#id2733478" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4342504" href="#idp4342504" class="para">92</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, 431 (1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733607" href="#id2733607" 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
-regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
-imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
-technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
-<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, "From Edison to
-the Broadcast Flag," <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
-70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2733250"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733695" href="#id2733695" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
-
-
-<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4351952" href="#idp4351952" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
+
+Dette er de viktigste forekomstene i vår historie, men det er også andre
+tilfeller. For eksempel var teknologien til digitale lydkasetter (DAT)
+regulert av kongressen for å minimere risikoen for piratkopiering.
+Medisinen som kongressen valgte påførte en belastning for DAT-produsenter,
+ved å legge en skatt på kassettsalg og ved å kontrollere DAT-teknologien. Se
+Audio Home Recording Act fra 1992 (overskrift 17 i <em class="citetitle">United States
+Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17
+U.S.C. §1001. Igjen eliminerte heller ikke denne regulereringen muligheten
+for gratispassasjerer slik jeg har beskrevet. Se Lessig
+<em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. Se også 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="idp4309288"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4354584"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4360848" href="#idp4360848" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
+
+
+<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 name="ftn.id2733746" href="#id2733746" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
-
-
-John Schwartz, "New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software Echoes Past
-Efforts," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 September 2003, C3.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 3. "Eiendom"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Kapittel 3. "Eiendom"</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><p>
-
-
-
-The copyright warriors are right: A copyright is a kind of property. It can
-be owned and sold, and the law protects against its theft. Ordinarily, the
-copyright owner gets to hold out for any price he wants. Markets reckon the
-supply and demand that partially determine the price she can get.
-</p><p>
-But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a "property" right is a bit
-misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of property.
-Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any expression is very
-odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you put in
-your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I take it,
-you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good
-<span class="emphasis"><em>idea</em></span> you had to put a picnic table in the
-backyard—by, for example, going to Sears, buying a table, and putting
-it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking then?
-</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), "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."<sup>[<a name="id2733818" href="#ftn.id2733818" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-The exceptions to free use are ideas and expressions within the reach of the
-law of patent and copyright, and a few other domains that I won't discuss
-here. Here the law says you can't take my idea or expression without my
-permission: The law turns the intangible into property.
-</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 "property" in its
-proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2733863" href="#ftn.id2733863" 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 "copyright material is
-property" 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—"copyright material is property"— 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="sect1" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><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: "Jeg likte det, men
-Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer."
-</p><p>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4365576" href="#idp4365576" 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>
+
+
+
+<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 eiendommen i opphavsretten
+er en merkelig type eiendom. Selve idéen om eierrettigheter til en idé
+eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig. Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
+tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage. Jeg tar en ting,
+piknik-bordet, 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4339568"></a><p>
+Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og idéer 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 idéer 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
+informasjon uten å ta noe fra meg, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
+fra min veike får lys uten å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp4375000" href="#ftn.idp4375000" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4377136"></a><p>
+Unntakene til fri bruk er idéer 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 idé eller uttrykk uten
+min tillatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
+</p><p>
+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="idp4379224" href="#ftn.idp4379224" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+Min strategi for å gjøre dette 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 begrensninger? 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.idp4375000" href="#idp4375000" 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.idp4379224" href="#idp4379224" 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 individ 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="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4387240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4387616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4387992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></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 skrev har
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4390736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
-skrevet, mente mange at "opphavsretten" kun tilhørte én eneste utgiver i
-London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2733937" href="#ftn.id2733937" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson var den
-mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"<sup>[<a name="id2733967" href="#ftn.id2733967" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele
-1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde en evigvarende rett over "kopier"
-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>
+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="idp4392600" href="#ftn.idp4392600" 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="idp4395480" href="#ftn.idp4395480" 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
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4397056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4398176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4398680"></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
-"Statute of Anne" 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="id2734005" href="#ftn.id2734005" 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 ikke hadde bestemt hva
+<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 tilleggsår.<sup>[<a name="idp4400296" href="#ftn.idp4400296" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
+grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ha
+falt i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over
+verket i 1774?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4402064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4402672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4403904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4404280"></a><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 "Statute of Anne", 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.
-</p><p>
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4406160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4406648"></a><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."Common law" 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 "bokselgere," 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 "The Conger", som
-derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov for å gi dem
-eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i "Statute of
-Anne".
-</p><p>
-"Statute of Anne" ga forfatteren eller "eieren" 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 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som
-helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne hadde tenkt.
-</p><p>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4408904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4409392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4410384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
+
+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
+for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightasnarrowmonopolyright"></a><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
+en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
+bokhandlernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
+retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
+fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
+hadde tenkt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4415152"></a><p>
Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
-trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
+trykkeretten? Spørsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4416416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4416904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4417280"></a><p>
Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
-krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
+krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
-kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
-han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
+kontroversiell påstanden, men det er ikke relevant), og med sin egen rett
+skapte 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 "stjeler" Shakespeares verk?
-</p><p>
+Shakespeares verk uten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke
+grunner finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares
+verk?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4419320"></a><p>
Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
-opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da "Statute of Anne" 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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4420464"></a><p>
Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
-begrepet "copyright" 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 "kopi-rett" 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>
+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
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4423352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4423728"></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. "Kopi-retten" var bare en eksklusiv rett til å
-trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
-</p><p>
-Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
-en lang og stygg erfaring med "eksklusive rettigheter," spesielt "enerett"
-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 "Statute of
-Monopolis" 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 "kopi-retten", når den sees på som en monopolrett, en rettighet
-som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden om at "det er
-min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid," prøv hvor overbevisende det er når
-men sier "det er mitt monopol, og jeg skal ha det for alltid.") 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>
+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="idp4425304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4426336"></a><p>
+Selv denne 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
+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
+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,
+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
+så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteressene kunne
+skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4430376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4431368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></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 "the Conger" 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 "gamle
-patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten"; de var "menn som derfor
-ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."<sup>[<a name="id2734241" href="#ftn.id2734241" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+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="idp4434336" href="#ftn.idp4434336" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4435208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4435584"></a><p>
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament2"></a><p>
For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity"></a><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 "Statute of Anne", 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.
+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.
</p><p>
Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
idag,
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="id2734319" href="#ftn.id2734319" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="idp4442104" href="#ftn.idp4442104" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4443600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4444088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4444576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4444952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4445456"></a><p>
Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
-saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: "Statute of Anne" ga
-forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
-beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
+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
+beskyttelsen var 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. "Statute of
-Anne", hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor betydde ikke det
-at beskyttelsen gitt av "Statute of Anne" utløp, at beskyttelsen fra
-sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde de rett til å fordømme
-publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om "Statute of Anne" sa at de var
-falt i det fri. Dette, mente de, var den eneste måten å beskytte
-forfatterne.
-</p><p>
+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,
+var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4448232"></a><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, "var utgiverne ... like bekymret
-for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."<sup>[<a name="id2734385" href="#ftn.id2734385" 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>
+jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntil 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="idp4270408" href="#ftn.idp4270408" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
+forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolprofitten
+forfatterens verk ga.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4451944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
-kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2734412" href="#ftn.id2734412" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons "the Conger". Han startet in karriere i
-Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av standardverk
-falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".<sup>[<a name="id2734435" href="#ftn.id2734435" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for
-litterære skotter." "Blant dem," skriver professor Mark Rose, var "den unge
-James Boswell som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel
-antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."<sup>[<a name="id2734454" href="#ftn.id2734454" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2734462"></a>
-</p><p>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="idp4453200" href="#ftn.idp4453200" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4455224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4455600"></a><p>
+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="idp4456824" href="#ftn.idp4456824" 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="idp4458608" href="#ftn.idp4458608" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw"></a><p>
Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
-flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av "de mest
-populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
-eiendom." <sup>[<a name="id2734480" href="#ftn.id2734480" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var mellom 30%
-og 50% billigere enn "the Conger"s, og han baserte sin rett til denne
-konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være "Statute of Anne", var falt i det
-fri.
-</p><p>
-Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot "pirater" som
+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="idp4460608" href="#ftn.idp4460608" 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4462368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
+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="idp4464456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4464944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4466792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4467168"></a><p>
Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
-Thomsons dikt "The Seasons". Millar hadde da full beskyttelse gjennom
-"Statute of Anne", 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 "Statute of Anne"
-sa.<sup>[<a name="id2734525" href="#ftn.id2734525" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
+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
+utløpt, 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="idp4468880" href="#ftn.idp4468880" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield
williammurraylord2"></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 "Statute of Anne" 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 pirater. 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>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4472200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4472688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4473176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
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
2734592"></a><p>
-Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
-der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2734607"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p4475888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></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
p4478312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4478688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></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="id2734621" href="#ftn.id2734621" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+Beckett.<sup>[<a name="idp4480928" href="#ftn.idp4480928" 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
slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
-Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
-</p><p>
+Parlamentets mening med utløpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4482232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4482720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
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 "Statute of
-Anne". Etter at "Statute of Anne" var blitt vedtatt, skulle den eneste
-lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor, mente de, i tråd
-med vilkårene i "Statute of Anne", falle i det fri så fort
-beskyttelsesperioden var over.
-</p><p>
+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
+fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4486336"></a><p>
Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
-huset, og ble først stemt over av "juslorder", medlemmer av enspesiell
-rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
-Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at "juslordene" hadde stemt, stemte resten av
-Overhuset.
-</p><p>
+huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av en
+spesiell 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,
+stemte resten av Overhuset.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4487952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
-</p><p>
-"Å falle i det fri". 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="id2734717"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2734724"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2734730"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2734736"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2734742"></a>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4491256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4491632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4492008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4492384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4492760"></a><p>
+<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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4494592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4495080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4495568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4496056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4496544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4497176"></a><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 "Ingen privatsak har noen
-gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt prøvet i
-Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker." "Stor glede i Edinburgh
-etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.<sup>[<a name="id2734771" href="#ftn.id2734771" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+piratutgiverne 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
+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="idp4499152" href="#ftn.idp4499152" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4499600"></a><p>
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-Gjennom denne avgjørelsen ... er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som er
-blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
+Gjennom denne avgjørelsen … er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
+er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
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="id2734802" href="#ftn.id2734802" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-
-
-Ruinert 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 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at
-kopiretten ble ignorert, for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett
-over trykkingen. Og heller ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles,
-for selv etter at boken var falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men
-<span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger
-var kontrollert av en liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville
-dette markedet vokse og utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den
-engelske kulturen ble nå formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det
-skulle formes - gjennom valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av
-*memes* de gjentok og beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende
-sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der 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>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="idp4449360" href="#ftn.idp4449360" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4502168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4502544"></a><p>
+
+
+<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
+<span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
+for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
+ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
+falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i
+betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
+liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
+utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
+formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
+valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av memer de gjentok og
+beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4506296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4506784"></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><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
-Jon Else is a filmmaker. He is best known for his documentaries and has been
-very successful in spreading his art. He is also a teacher, and as a teacher
-myself, I envy the loyalty and admiration that his students feel for him. (I
-met, by accident, two of his students at a dinner party. He was their god.)
-</p><p>
-Else worked on a documentary that I was involved in. At a break, he told me
-a story about the freedom to create with film in America today.
-</p><p>
-In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner's Ring Cycle. The
-focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera. Stagehands are a
-particularly funny and colorful element of an opera. During a show, they
-hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and in the lighting loft. They
-make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage. <a class="indexterm" name="id2734904"></a>
-</p><p>
-
-During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands playing
-checkers. In one corner of the room was a television set. Playing on the
-television set, while the stagehands played checkers and the opera company
-played Wagner, was <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. As Else judged it,
-this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special about
-the scene.
-</p><p>
-Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
-attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of <em class="citetitle">The
-Simpsons</em>. For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and
-of course, to use copyrighted material you need the permission of the
-copyright owner, unless "fair use" or some other privilege applies.
-</p><p>
-Else called <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> creator Matt Groening's office
-to get permission. Groening approved the shot. The shot was a
-four-and-a-halfsecond image on a tiny television set in the corner of the
-room. How could it hurt? Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he
-told Else to contact Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2734949"></a>
-</p><p>
-Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted to be
-careful. So they told Else to contact Fox, Gracie's parent company. Else
-called Fox and told them about the clip in the corner of the one room shot
-of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission, Else said. He was
-just confirming the permission with Fox. <a class="indexterm" name="id2734964"></a>
-</p><p>
-Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we discovered . . . that
-Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at least that someone
-[at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation." And second, Fox "wanted
-ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to use this four-point-five
-seconds of . . . entirely unsolicited <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which
-was in the corner of the shot."
-</p><p>
-Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone he
-thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera. He explained
-to her, "There must be some mistake here. . . . We're asking for your
-educational rate on this." That was the educational rate, Herrera told
-Else. A day or so later, Else called again to confirm what he had been told.
-</p><p>
-
-"I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight," he told me. "Yes, you have
-your facts straight," she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the clip of
-<em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> in the corner of a shot in a documentary
-film about Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then, astonishingly, Herrera told Else,
-"And if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys." As an assistant
-to Herrera told Else later on, "They don't give a shit. They just want the
-money."
-</p><p>
-Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was playing on
-the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera. To reproduce this
-reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the very last
-minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally replaced the shot
-with a clip from another film that he had worked on, <em class="citetitle">The Day
-After Trinity</em>, from ten years before. <a class="indexterm" name="id2735021"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2735028"></a>
-</p><p>
-There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the
-copyright to <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. That copyright is their
-property. To use that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the
-permission of the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of
-the <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> copyright were one of the uses
-restricted by the law, then he would need to get the permission of the
-copyright owner before he could use the work in that way. And in a free
-market, it is the owner of the copyright who gets to set the price for any
-use that the law says the owner gets to control.
-</p><p>
-For example, "public performance" is a use of <em class="citetitle">The
-Simpsons</em> that the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a
-selection of favorite episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets
-to come see "My Favorite <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>," then you need to
-get permission from the copyright owner. And the copyright owner (rightly,
-in my view) can charge whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's
-her right, as set by the law.
-</p><p>
-But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought
-is "fair use."<sup>[<a name="id2735075" href="#ftn.id2735075" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Else's use of just 4.5
-seconds of an indirect shot of a <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> episode is
-clearly a fair use of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>—and fair use
-does not require the permission of anyone.
-</p><p>
-
-
-So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon "fair use." Here's his reply:
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-The <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> fiasco was for me a great lesson in the
-gulf between what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what
-is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make
-and broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was "clearly fair
-use" in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't rely on the concept in any
-concrete way. Here's why:
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4507760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4508344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4508952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4509440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4510008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4510592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4511160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4511648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4512136"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4392600" href="#idp4392600" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4392792"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4393296"></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):
+424-31.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4395480" href="#idp4395480" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
-Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy Errors
-and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed "visual cue sheet"
-listing the source and licensing status of each shot in the film. They take
-a dim view of "fair use," and a claim of "fair use" can grind the
-application process to a halt.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the first place. But I
-knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a history of tracking down and
-stopping unlicensed <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> usage, just as George
-Lucas had a very high profile litigating <em class="citetitle">Star Wars</em>
-usage. So I decided to play by the book, thinking that we would be granted
-free or cheap license to four seconds of <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>. As
-a documentary producer working to exhaustion on a shoestring, the last thing
-I wanted was to risk legal trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to
-defend a principle. <a class="indexterm" name="id2735164"></a>
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+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.idp4400296" href="#idp4400296" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4400488"></a> Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent
+argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åndsverkslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
+Copywrongs</em>, 40.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4434336" href="#idp4434336" 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.idp4442104" href="#idp4442104" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
+
+
+A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
+House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
+Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
+Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
+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.idp4270408" href="#idp4270408" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4449632"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4450136"></a> 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.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4453200" href="#idp4453200" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
+
+
+For en fascinerende fremstilling, se David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship
+and Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4456824" href="#idp4456824" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
+
+Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
+University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="idp4457264"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4458608" href="#idp4458608" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Ibid., 93.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4460608" href="#idp4460608" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4460800"></a> Lyman Ray Patterson,
+<em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em>, 167 (der Borwell
+blir sitert).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4468880" href="#idp4468880" 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
+Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4480928" href="#idp4480928" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
+Ibid., 1156.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4499152" href="#idp4499152" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
-I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford Law School
-. . . who confirmed that it was fair use. He also confirmed that Fox would
-"depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life," regardless of the
-merits of my claim. He made clear that it would boil down to who had the
-bigger legal department and the deeper pockets, me or them.
+Rose, 97.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4449360" href="#idp4449360" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
+
+
+ibid.
+</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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdocumentaryfilm"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxelsejon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuseindocumentaryfilm"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsfairuseofcopyrightedmaterialin"></a><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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4519264"></a><p>
+I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
+scenearbeidere på San Francisco Opera. Scenearbeiderne er spesielt morsomme
+og fargerike 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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxsimpsonsthe"></a><p>
+
+Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen scenearbeidere som spilte dam. I et
+hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
+forestillingen pågikk, mens scenearbeiderne spilte dam og operakompaniet
+spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det,
+så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4522288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4522776"></a><p>
+Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
+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
+det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxgraciefilms"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgroeningmatt"></a><p>
+Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
+for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany"></a><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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4528232"></a><p>
+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
+sekundene med … fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
+som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4529928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4530416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxherrerarebecca"></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
+etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4532680"></a><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
+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 hele
+tatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4535168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4535656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4536032"></a><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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgroeningmatt2"></a><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
+eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet materiale, kreves det ofte at men får
+tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
+<em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
+beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
+det. Og i et fritt marked 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
+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
+fra rettighetsinnehaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
+det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10 eller $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="idp4542176" href="#ftn.idp4542176" 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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4544592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4545080"></a><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:
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst"></a><p>
+<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
+var mellom det jurister ikke finner relevant 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 dette er grunnen:
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4549128"></a><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 detaljert
+<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"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4551744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4552160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4552576"></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
+ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
+George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
+Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
+kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
+av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
+på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
+for å forsvare et prinsipp.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-The question of fair use usually comes up at the end of the project, when we
-are up against a release deadline and out of money.
-</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
-In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory therefore
-supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture. But in
-practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of the law,
-tied to the extraordinary liability if lines are crossed, means that the
-effective fair use for many types of creators is slight. The law has the
-right aim; practice has defeated the aim.
-</p><p>
-This practice shows just how far the law has come from its
-eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect
-publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has
-matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or not.
-</p></div><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2735228"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2735235"></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="id2735250"></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
-launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
-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="id2735258"></a><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
-include them on the CD.
-</p><p>
-
-
-That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
-wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
-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="id2735292"></a><p>
-Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. "Our goal was
-that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's films," Alben
-told me. It was here that the problem arose. "No one had ever really done
-this before," Alben explained. "No one had ever tried to do this in the
-context of an artistic look at an actor's career."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2735308"></a><p>
-Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked,
-"Well, what will it take?"
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2735319"></a><p>
-Alben replied, "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." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."<sup>[<a name="id2735331" href="#ftn.id2735331" 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
-to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
-in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
-Starwave was to do.
-</p><p>
-I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
-resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
-recounted just what they did:
+
+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>,
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4556504"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+
+
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4558192"></a><p>
+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
+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
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4561072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4561792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4562456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4563088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4563776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4564512"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4542176" href="#idp4542176" 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
+forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4566216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4567408"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>I 1993</strong></span> var Alex Alben en jurist som
+arbeidet hos Starwave Inc. Starwave var et innovativt firma grunnlagt av
+Paul Allen, som også hadde vært med på å grunnlegge Microsoft.Starwaves mål
+var å utvikle digital underholdning. Lenge før internett ble superpopulært,
+forsket Starwave på ny teknologi for å levere underholdning uten nettverk.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsretrospective"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdroms"></a><p>
+Alben var veldig interessert i ny teknologi. Han var fascinert av det
+voksende markedet for CD-ROM-teknologi—ikke for å distribuere film,
+men for å gjøre ting med filmen som før ville vært svært vanskelig. I 1993
+lanserte han ideen om å utvikle et produkt for å vise retrospectives* rundt
+verkene av en bestemt kunstner. Den første skuespilleren som ble valgt, var
+Clint Eastwood. Ideen var å vise alle Eastwoods verker, sammen med klipp fra
+filmene hans og intervjuer av personer som hadde vært viktige i hans
+karriere.
+</p><p>
+På den tiden hadde Eastwood lagd over femti filmer, både som skuespiller og
+som regissør. Alben begynte med en serie intervjuer med Eastwood, hvor tema
+var hans karriere. Siden Starwave produserte disse intervjuene, kunne de
+fritt ha dem med på CD-en.
+</p><p>
+
+
+Men det alene hadde ikke blitt noe interessant produkt, så Starwave ønsket å
+legge til litt innhold fra noen av Eastwoods filmer, noen plakater, manus og
+andre ting som kunne knyttes til filmene hans. Mesteparten av Eastwoods
+karriere hadde foregått hos Warner Brothers og det var relativt enkelt å få
+tillatelse for det materialet.
+</p><p>
+Deretter ønsket Alben og hans team å bruke noen faktiske klipp fra aktuelle
+filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vårt mål var å ha et klipp fra alle Eastwoods filmer</span>»</span>
+fortalte Alben meg. Det var her problemene startet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen hadde
+noensinne gjort dette før</span>»</span>, forklarte Alben. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen hadde prøvd
+å presentere et slikt kunstnerisk overblikk over en skuespillers
+karriere.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Alben tok ideen videre til Michael Slade, leder for Starwave. Slade spurte
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, hvor mye vil det kreve?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Alben svarte, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tja, vi må innhente tillatelse fra alle som opptrer i
+disse filmene, for musikken og for alt annet som er i disse
+filmklippene.</span>»</span> Slade svarte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Flott! Gjør
+det.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp4576280" href="#ftn.idp4576280" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+Problemet var at verken Alben eller Slade forstod hva det innebar å innhente
+disse tillatelsene. Alle skuespillerne i hver av filmene kunne ha krav på
+royalties for bruk av sin film. Men CD-ROM hadde ikke vært spesifisert i
+skuespillernes kontrakter, så ingen visste helt hva Starwave skulle gjøre.
+</p><p>
+Jeg spurte Alben om hvordan han løste problemet. Med en tydelig stolthet som
+overskygget hvor bisarr historien var, så fortalte han hva de gjorde:
</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 "Make my day" 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.
-</p><p>
-
-
-We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
-the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
-a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
-was about $600. So we had to identify the people—some of them were
-hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
-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="id2735392"></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, "Hey, can I pay you $600
-or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?" And they would say,
-"Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get $1,200." 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—"and even then we weren't
-sure whether we were totally in the clear."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2735429"></a><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.
+Så vi dro og fant frem filmene og gjorde noen kunstneriske beslutninger om
+hvilke klipp som skulle være med. Selvsagt skulle vi bruke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my
+day</span>»</span>-scenen fra Dirty Harry. Men da måtte vi oppsøke den personen som
+ligger på bakken under geværet og få hans tillatelse. Og så måtte vi
+bestemme hva han skulle få betalt.
+</p><p>
+
+
+Vi bestemte at det ville være rettferdig hvis vi tilbydde dem en
+dagspiller-sats for retten til å bruke klippet. Vi snakker tross alt om et
+klipp på under et minutt, men satsen for å bruke klippet på CD-ROM lå på den
+tiden på $600. Så vi måtte identifisere personene - noen var vanskelig å
+identifisere, siden det ofte er vanskelig å vite hvem som er skuespilleren
+og hvem som er stuntmannen i Eastwoods filmer. Og deretter samlet vi oss en
+gjeng og begynte å ringe rundt.
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4582152"></a><p>
+Noen skuespillere var glade for å kunne hjelpe — Donald Sutherland
+fulgte for eksempel opp saken personlig for å sørge for at alt var
+greit. Andre brydde seg mest om pengene. Alben kunne spørre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hei, kan
+jeg betale deg $600, eller hvis du var i to filmer $1200?</span>»</span> Og de
+kunne svare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Er det sant? Jeg vil svært gjerne ha $1200.</span>»</span> Og
+noen kunne være litt vanskelige av seg (særlig krevende eks-koner). Men til
+slutt greide Alben og hans team å gjøre rede for alle rettighetene til CD-en
+om Clint Eastwoods karriere.
+</p><p>
+Det gått ett <span class="emphasis"><em>år</em></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og selv da var vi ikke sikre på
+om alt var helt klart.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Alben er stolt av arbeidet sitt. Prosjektet var det første av sitt slag, og
+første gang han hadde hørt om et team som hadde tatt på seg så mye arbeid
+for å gi ut en *retrospective*.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
-and said, "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." But we
-just broke it down. We just put it into its constituent parts and said,
-"Okay, there's this many actors, this many directors, . . . this many
-musicians," and we just went at it very systematically and cleared the
-rights.
+Alle hadde trodd det skulle bli for vanskelig. De hadde kastet hendene i
+været og sagt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oi, en film. Det er så mange rettigheter; det er
+musikk, det er scenekusten, det er skuespillere, det er regissører.</span>»</span>
+Men vi gjorde det! Vi tok delen fra hverandre og sa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">okei, det er så
+mange skuespillere, så mange regissører ... så mange musikere</span>»</span>, så
+gikk vi systematisk igjennom det og fikk tak i rettighetene.
</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
2735463"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2735470"></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, "There is nothing so
-useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
-all."<sup>[<a name="id2735483" href="#ftn.id2735483" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked Alben,
-that this is the way a new work has to be made?
+Og produktet ble uten tvil særdeles godt. Eastwood elsket det og det solgte
+veldig godt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p4587592"></a><p>
+Men jeg spurte Alben om hvor merkelig det syntes at det skulle ta et helt år
+bare å få orden på rettigheter. Alben hadde gjort det hele svært effektivt,
+men som Peter Drucker så berømmelig har sagt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er ikke noe som er
+så ubrukelig å gjøre effektivt enn det som egentlig ikke gjøres i det hele
+tatt.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp4588888" href="#ftn.idp4588888" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Var det noe fornuft i at
+det var slik et nye verk skulle skapes, spurte jeg Alben.
</p><p>
-For, as he acknowledged, "very few . . . have the time and resources, and
-the will to do this," 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?
+For, som han innrømmet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">veldig få ... har tid og ressurser, og ikke
+minst vilje til å gjøre dette</span>»</span>, og veldig få slike verk har blitt
+lagd, Gir det noen mening, spurte jeg ham, ********* at du må gjøre alt
+dette for å få rett til å bruke disse klippene?
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
-gets paid very well. . . . And then when 30 seconds of that performance is
-used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I don't
-think that that person . . . should be compensated for that.
+Jeg tror ikke det. Når en skuespiller gjengir en forestilling i en film, får
+han eller hun veldig godt betalt … Og derfor, når 30 sekunder av
+denne forestillingen blir brukt i et nytt produkt som er et tilbakeblikk på
+noens karriere, så tror jeg ikke at den personen … burde få
+kompensasjon for det.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
-compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
-statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
-of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
-have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
-permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
-the creative process could be made to be more clean?
+Eller er det kanskje <span class="emphasis"><em>slik</em></span> en kunstner burde få
+kompensasjon? Gir det noen mening, spurte jeg, om det var en form for
+lovbestemt lisens som noen kan betale og fritt videreutvikle og bearbeide
+klipp som disse? Ga det virkelig mening at en videreutviklende skaper
+skulle måtte spore opp hver eneste artist, skuespiller, regissør, musiker og
+få eksplisitt tillatelse fra hver av dem. Ville ikke mye mer bli laget hvis
+den juridiske delen av den kreative prosessen kunne gjøres enklere.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
-mechanism—where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
-subject to estranged former spouses—you'd see a lot more of this work,
-because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
-someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
-person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
-things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
-performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
-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, "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," then
-it becomes difficult to put one of these things together.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2735571"></a><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, "Does this still make sense?"
-</p><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.
-The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
-asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
-L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
-Fairbank, had produced.
-</p><p>
-The video was a brilliant collage of film from every period in the twentieth
-century, all framed around the idea of a <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>
-episode. The execution was perfect, down to the sixty-minute stopwatch. The
-judges loved every minute of it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2735620"></a><p>
+Absolutt. Jeg tror at hvis det fantes en form for
+lisensieringsmekanisme—hvor du ikke risikerte å bli offer for
+forglemmelser eller problematiske ekskoner—ville man kanskje ha sett
+mange flere av denne typen verk, rett og slett fordi det ikke ville sett så
+skrekkinngytende ut å sette sammen et tilbakeblikk på noens karriere og å
+bruke mange media-illustrasjoner fra dennes karriere. Du ville kunne lage en
+budsjettpost på dette. Sette opp en kostnad på X dollar til talentet som
+fremførte. Og det ville være en kjent kostnad. Det er kanskje
+kjerneproblemet med å produsere slike produkter. Hvis man visste at man
+hadde 100 minutter med film, kunne man si at dette vil koste meg så og så
+mange dollar, og lage et budsjett rundt det. Deretter kan du skaffe
+investorer og alt annet som trengs for å produsere det. Men dersom man kun
+kan si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hm, jeg ønsker 100 minutter med noe, og jeg aner ikke hvor mye
+det vil koste meg, og et bestemt antall personer vil kreve penger</span>»</span>,
+vil det være ganske vanskelig å få til slike ting.
+</p></blockquote></div><p>
+Alben jobbet for et stort selskap. Hans selskap var støttet av noen av de
+rikeste investorene i verden. Derfor hadde han myndighet og ressurser som en
+gjennomsnittlig webdesigner ikke kunne drømme om. Så hvis det tok ham et år,
+hvor lang tid ville det ta noen andre? Og hvor mye kreativitet får aldri
+form på grunn av kostnadene rundt å kartlegge og skaffe rettigheter?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4596440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4597008"></a><p>
+Disse kostnadene er byrdene av en form for regulering. Vi kan prøve å ta på
+oss en republikanerhatt og bli sinte for et øyeblikk. Staten styrer disse
+rettighetenes dekningsområde, og dekningsområdet bestemmer hvor mye det vil
+koste å krenke disse rettighetene. (Husker dere ideen om at en eiendom
+strakte seg til universets grense? Og se for dere piloten som må betale for
+å krysse eiendommen som han krenker ved å fly fra Los Angeles til San
+Francisco.) Disse rettighetene gav sikkert mening en gang, men nå som
+forholdene har endret seg, er meningen borte. Ihvertfall så burde en
+veltrenet, reguleringsfiendtlig republikaner se på rettighetene og spørre
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gir dette mening nå?</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4598896"></a><p>
+
+Jeg har sett glimt av gjenkjennelse på dette punktet, men bare noen få
+ganger. Første gang var på en konferanse for føderale dommere i
+California. Dommerne var samlet for å diskutere det økende temaet
+cyber-lov. Jeg ble spurt om å sitte i panelet. Harvey Saferstein, en
+respektert advokat fra et firma i Los Angeles, introduserte en film han og
+hans venn Robert Fairbank hadde laget for panelet.
+</p><p>
+Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
+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="idp4601520"></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: "Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp brutt
-i dette rommet?"
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2735640"></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,
-it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
-violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
-notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
-anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
-member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
-Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
-the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
-enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
-couldn't easily do them legally.
-</p><p>
-We live in a "cut and paste" 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>
-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
-around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
-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="id2735682"></a>
-</p><p>
-All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
-to be "legal," 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.
-</p><p>
-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 "free" use be free as in "free beer." 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 "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." 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>
-Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
-objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
-made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists. What reason
-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 "unique filmmaking pact." Under the agreement, DreamWorks
-"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."
-</p><p>
-The announcement called this "film sampling." As Myers explained, "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." Steven Spielberg is quoted as saying, "If
-anyone can create a way to bring old films to new audiences, it is Mike."
-</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
-announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
-copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
-is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
-to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
-presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
-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 "fair use." Much
-of "sampling" should be considered "fair use." 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 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair
-use rights or pay a lawyer 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><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
-In April 1996, millions of "bots"—computer codes designed to "spider,"
+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="idp4603080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4603496"></a><p>
+Og selvsagt hadde ikke disse to briljante talentene gjort hva Alben hadde
+gjort. De hadde ikke ordnet alle rettighetene til klippene de brukte. Rent
+teknisk hadde de brutt loven. Men ingen kom til å straffeforfølge disse to
+(selv om de viste den for 250 dommere og en gjeng føderale marshaller". Men
+Nimmer hadde et viktig poeng: Et år før noen hadde hørt ordet Napster, og to
+år før et annet medlem av panelet, David Boies, ville forsvare Napster for
+den niende Circuit Court of Appeals, prøvde Nimmer å få dommerne til å
+forstå at loven ikke var særlig åpen for de nye kapasitetene den nye
+teknologien ville gi. Teknologi betyr at du kan gjøre fantastiske ting,
+enkelt. Men du kan ikke nødvendigvis gjøre dem enkelt, lovlig.
+</p><p>
+Vi lever i en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">klippe og lime</span>»</span>-kultur som er muliggjort av
+dagens teknologi. Alle som lager presentasjoner vet hvilken eksepsjonell
+frihet internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">klippe og lime</span>»</span>-arkitektur gir—på et
+sekund kan du finne akkurat det bildet du vil ha, og du kan få den inn i
+presentasjonen din.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4606168"></a><p>
+
+Men presentasjoner er bare en liten begynnelse. Ved hjelp av internett og
+dets arkiver, er musikere i stand til å sy sammen nye lydmikser som ingen
+hadde kunnet forestille seg; filmskapere er i stand til å lage filmer ut av
+klipp på datamaskiner rundt om i verden. Et spesielt nettsted i Sverige tar
+bilder av politikere og blander dem med musikk å skape bitende politiske
+kommentarer. En nettside kalt Camp Chaos har skapt noe av den skarpeste
+kritikken som finnes mot musikkindustrien, gjennom å mikse Flash! og musikk.
+</p><p>
+Men alt dette er rent teknisk ulovlig. Selv om skaperen ønsket å holde seg
+på rett side av loven, ville kostnadene ved å følge loven vært
+umenneskelige. Derfor vil de som ønsker å følge loven bli hindret i å bruke
+sin kreativitet, og mye blir aldri skapt. Og det som er skapt, vil ikke bli
+publisert fordi det ikke følger *clearence-rules*.
+</p><p>
+Noen ser synes at denne historien kommer med et forslag til forbedring: La
+oss fjerne miksen av rettigheter slik at folk fritt kan bygge på vår
+kultur. Fritt å legge til eller mikse som de synes det passer. Vi kunne
+innføre dette uten at det ble fritt som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri bar</span>»</span>. I stedet
+kunne systemet gjøre det lettere for nye kunstnere å kompensere den
+originale artisten uten at det krever en hær av jurister. Hva med regler som
+f. eks. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kompensasjon til en opphavsrettholder for uregistrerte verk
+vil for avledede verk føre 1% av netto overskudd (*to be held in escrow for
+the copyright owner.*)</span>»</span> Med en slik regel ville opphavsrettholderen
+få en inntekt, men han vil ikke ha en full eiendomsrett over opphavsretten
+(som betyr retten til å sette sin egen pris) uten å ha registrert verket.
+</p><p>
+Hvem vil nekte å bli med på det? Og hvilke grunner finner for å nekte dette?
+Vi snakker om et verk som ikke blir lagd akkurat nå, men om det blir lagd
+under denne planen, vil det skape inntekter for artistene. Hvilke baktanker
+kan noen ha for motarbeide det?
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>I februar 2003</strong></span> kunne DreamWorks studios
+kunngjøre at de hadde fått en avtale med komikeren Mike Myers (mannen bak
+Saturday Night Liva og Austin Powers). Ifølge kunngjøringen skulle
+DreamWorks og Myers arbeide for å skape en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unik
+filmskaperavtale</span>»</span>. Og under denne avtalen ville DreamWorks <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">få
+rett til å benytte eksisterende filmklipp, skrive nye storylines* og - med
+hjelp av *stateof-the-art-teknologi - sette inn Myers og andre skuespillere
+i filmene, og slik skape et helt nytt stykke underholdning.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Dette ble kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling</span>»</span>, og som Myers forklarte var
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling en fantastisk måte å få ny vri på eksisterende filmer
+og lar publikum se gamle filmer i et nytt lys. Rap-artister har gjort slikt
+i en årrekke og nå kan vi ta det samme konseptet og bruke det på
+film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg er sitert med følgende utsagn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis
+noen kan klare å bringe gamle filmer til et nytt publikum, så er det
+Mike.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Spielberg har rett. Film sampling med Myers ville vært briljant. Men hvis du
+ikke følger godt med, så vil du overse det forbløffende med denne
+kunngjøringen. Siden den aller største delen av vår filmarv fortsetter å
+være regulert av loven, så er den virkelige meningen i DreamWorks
+kunngjøring følgende: Det er Mike Myers og kun Mike Myers som har lov til å
+gjøre slikt. All generell frihet til å fortsette å bygge på verdens
+filmkultur, en frihet som i andre sammenhenger er en selvfølge, er et
+privilegium forbeholdt de morsomme og berømte - og antakelig rike.
+</p><p>
+Dette privilegiet er såpass reservert av to grunner: Første grunn er en
+fortsettelse av forrige kapittel, vagheten i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
+bruk</span>»</span>. Mye av denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplingen</span>»</span> vil nok betraktes som
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>, men ingen våger å stole på et så vagt
+prinsipp. Det leder oss til neste grunn for at privilegiet er forbeholdt få:
+Kostnadene ved å krenke opphavsretten ved kreativt gjenbruk er
+astronomiske. Disse kostnadene speiler kostnaden for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
+bruk</span>»</span>: Enten betaler du en jurist til å forsvare dine <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
+bruk</span>»</span>-rettigheter, eller så betaler du en jurist for å oppspore og
+ordne med rettighetene du trenger, slik at du slipper å stole på rimelig
+bruk. I begge tilfeller er den kreative prosessen blitt en prosess med å
+betale jurister—igjen, et privilegium forbeholdt de få.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4576280" href="#idp4576280" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
+
+Teknisk sett var rettighetene som Alben måtte klarere i hovedsak de om
+publisitet—rettigheten en artist har til å kontrollere den
+kommersielle utnyttelsen av sitt bilde. Men disse rettighetene belaster
+også <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip, miks, brenn</span>»</span>-kreativiteten slik dette kapittelet
+demonstrerer. <a class="indexterm" name="idp4577344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4578016"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4588888" href="#idp4588888" 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>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
+</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="idp4620544"></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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4621600"></a><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 "the Way Back Machine," 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>
+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><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="idp4625816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4626888"></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="id2735854" href="#ftn.id2735854" 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="idp4627728" href="#ftn.idp4627728" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4629784"></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="idp4632632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4634176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4634576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4635000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4635416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
-history. At the end of 2002, it held "two hundred and thirty terabytes of
-material"—and was "ten times larger than the Library of Congress." 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 constructed through
-television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is 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. "But
-other than that, [television] is almost unavailable," Kahle told me. "If you
-were Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are
-just a graduate student?" As Kahle put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+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
+constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
+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
+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="idp4638944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4639336"></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
fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
-after it . . . it would be almost impossible. . . . Those materials are
-almost unfindable. . . .
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+after it … it would be almost impossible. … Those materials
+are almost unfindable. …
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4640904"></a><p>
Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
libraries. These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4642600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4642992"></a><p>
These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
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 "borrowed back." 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="id2735917" href="#ftn.id2735917" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
+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="idp4643824" href="#ftn.idp4643824" 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 "theft." 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 "copyrighted." 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.
-</p><p>
+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
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4647024"></a><p>
Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
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="idp4648320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4648712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4649272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4649936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4650488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4650880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4651296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4651712"></a><p>
Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
-archive of film includes close to 45,000 "ephemeral films" (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 be downloaded for
-free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies of these films as
-stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he made a significant
-chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
+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
+be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
+of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
+made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
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
-"Duck and Cover" 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="id2736025"></a>
+<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.
</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 "lives." 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 that content,
-commercial life is extremely important. Without this commercial market,
-there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
+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
+that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
+commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
</p><p>
After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
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="idp4656648"></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="id2736124" href="#ftn.id2736124" 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="idp4657440" href="#ftn.idp4657440" 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="idp4663312"></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 twentieth
-century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of books. All
-of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and be able to
-be afforded by a small company. So we're at a turning point in our
-history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
-different life, based on this, is . . . thrilling. It could be one of the
+… and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
+twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
+books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
+be able to be afforded by a small company. So we're at a turning point in
+our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
+different life, based on this, is … thrilling. It could be one of the
things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
press.
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4664048"></a><p>
Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
</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 "archives," as warm as the idea of a "library" might seem, the
-"content" that is collected in these digital spaces is also someone's
-"property." And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and
-others would exercise.
-</p></div><div class="sect1" title='Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</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="id2736245"></a>
-</p><p>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4668176"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4627728" href="#idp4627728" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4627920"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4628472"></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.idp4643824" href="#idp4643824" 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
+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.idp4657440" href="#idp4657440" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4657632"></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="idp4669872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4670288"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4671184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4672136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4672544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4672960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4673376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4673800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4674216"></a><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
defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism. The
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="id2736304"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736309"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2736316"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736322"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736328"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736334"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736341"></a>
+Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.
</p><p>
system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
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 "creative
-property."
+epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
+<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="id2736407" href="#ftn.id2736407" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
+debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="idp4679056" href="#ftn.idp4679056" 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 "central
-theme" to which "reasonable men and women" will return is this: "Creative
-property owners must be accorded the same rights and protections resident in
-all other property owners in the nation." There are no second-class
-citizens, Valenti might have continued. There should be no second-class
-property owners.
+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
+accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
+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
such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
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 "creative property." 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 "creative property" is certainly "property" in a nerdy and precise
-sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<sup>[<a name="id2736459" href="#ftn.id2736459" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that "creative
-property owners" have been "accorded the same rights and protection resident
-in all other property owners." 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.
+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>
+in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
+understand,<sup>[<a name="idp4683448" href="#ftn.idp4683448" 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>
Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
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 "property." 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 "Takings Clause," to pay you "just compensation"
-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.
+<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
+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 "creative property." In the clause granting Congress the power to
-create "creative property," the Constitution <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span>
-that after a "limited time," Congress take back the rights that it has
-granted and set the "creative property" free to the public domain. Yet when
-Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term "takes" your
-copyright and turns it over to the public domain, Congress does not have any
-obligation to pay "just compensation" for this "taking." Instead, the same
+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
+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
Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
-your "creative property" 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
tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxjeffersonthomas"></a><p>
Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong. There
was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong. The
Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
creative property there must be a public domain?
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4696640"></a><p>
To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
-these "creative property" 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 should be protected,
-but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will enforce the rights the law
-gives to creative-property owners, but what the particular mix of rights
-ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> artists should be paid, but
-whether institutions designed to assure that artists get paid need also
-control how culture develops.
-</p><p>
+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
+should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
+enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
+particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
+artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
+artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreeculturefourmodalitiesofconstrainton"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationfourmodalitiesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasexpostregulationmodality"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality"></a><p>
perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
-the right or regulation.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
+the right or regulation.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4705080"></a><p>
At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right. For
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="id2736356"></a>
-</p><p>
+by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="idp4676024"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4707096"></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="idxmarketconstraints"></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="idp4709808"></a><p>
Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
-"architecture"—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, architecture does not
-effect its constraint through ex post 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 "architecture." 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.
-</p><p>
+<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,
+architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
+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
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4712360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4713032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4713720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
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="id
xdrivespeed"></a><p>
-So, for example, consider the "freedom" 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 rational drivers;
-governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum rate at which the
-driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the market: Fuel
-efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline indirectly
-constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or may not
-constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your own
-neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p4716624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4717016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4717440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></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
+rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
+rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
+market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
+indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
+may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
+own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
</p><p>
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="id2736783" href="#ftn.id2736783" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
+in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="idp4722080" href="#ftn.idp4722080" 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
2736803"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.2. 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
p4723640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4724992"></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="idp4726704"></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="id2736848" href="#ftn.id2736848" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
-</p><
div class="sect2" title="Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="hollywood"></a>Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h3></div></div></div><p>
+modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="idp4727616" href="#ftn.idp4727616" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
+</p><
a class="indexterm" name="idp4732944"></a><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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><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
courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
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
3.3. 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="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4737696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
this form of infringement.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4741160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4741728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4742152"></a><p>
Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
of anarchy after the Internet.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4743160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4743896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4744608"></a><p>
Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
results.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
3.4. 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>
+</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"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4746960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
-warriors. Indeed, in a "White Paper" 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
+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
effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
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="idp4749432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4750120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4750864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4751272"></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
(architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
U.S. steel industry.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4752984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4753608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4754344"></a><p>
Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
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
-"architecture of revenue."
-</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4755544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4755976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4756560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4756976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4757392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4757808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4758224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4758640"></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="id2737045" href="#ftn.id2737045" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
+cameras.<sup>[<a name="idp4759632" href="#ftn.idp4759632" 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 "stickiness" 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>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4763504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4763920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4764328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4764888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4765296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4765712"></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, "established companies have an interest in excluding future
-competitors."<sup>[<a name="id2737094" href="#ftn.id2737094" 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="idp4766912" href="#ftn.idp4766912" 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="id2737113"></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
makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4768936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4769488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4769920"></a><p>
In the context of laws regulating speech—which include, obviously,
copyright law—that duty is even stronger. When the industry
complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
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: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of
-speech." So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that would "abridge"
-the freedom of speech, it should ask— carefully—whether such
-regulation is justified.
-</p><p>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4771936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4772608"></a><p>
My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
-that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are "justified." 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.
+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
+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.
</p><p>
Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idx
ddt"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idx
mllerpaulhermann"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinsecticideenvironmentalconsequencesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfarming"></a><p>
In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
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="id2737190"></a>
+increase farm production.
</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
2737208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p4779120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4779536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></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="id2737224"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2737230"></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="idp4782352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4783048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
-appeals when he argues that we need an "environmentalism" for
-culture.<sup>[<a name="id2737260" href="#ftn.id2737260" 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="idp4785208" href="#ftn.idp4785208" 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 "for free." 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 or an attack on
-farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of regulations
-protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack on authors.
-It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should be aware of
-our actions' effects on the environment.
-</p><p>
+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
+or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
+regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
+on authors. It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
+be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4787664"></a><p>
My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
for creativity.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4789104"></a><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
2737304"></a></div><div class="sect2" title="Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="beginnings"></a>Opphav</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p4790224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4790880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4791616"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4792864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4795472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4796040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4798424"></a><p>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
-English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of "creative
-property" rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English aim to
-avoid overly powerful publishers.
-</p><p>
-The power to establish "creative property" 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:
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusinconstitutionalprogressclause"></a><p>
+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
-"Progress Clause," for notice what this clause does not say. It does not say
-Congress has the power to grant "creative property rights." 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>
+<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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4802760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
-chapter 6, the English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a
-few would not exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
+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 "to Authors"
-only.
-</p><p>
+reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to
+Authors</span>»</span> only.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4806912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4807328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4807872"></a><p>
The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
-</p><p>
-I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call "copyright"
-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
-"copyright" in context: We need to see how it has changed in the 210 years
-since they first struck its design.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4808744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4810200"></a><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
+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
+changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4811800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4812512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4813248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4814016"></a><p>
Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
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
3.5. 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>
+</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
3.6. "Opphavsrett" 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.
-</p></div><div class="sect
2" title="Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="lawduration"></a>Loven: Varighet</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="sect
ion" title="10.3. Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4821288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
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="id2737464" href="#ftn.id2737464" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
+rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="idp4823336" href="#ftn.idp4823336" 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
uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
to reprint and distribute works.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4825600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections. Just
as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
expired as well.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightrenewabilityof"></a><p>
In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
work passed into the public domain.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4829112"></a><p>
Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
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="id2737535" href="#ftn.id2737535" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+14 år.<sup>[<a name="idp4830656" href="#ftn.idp4830656" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4833344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4833992"></a><p>
Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
for opphavsrett. Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
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="id2737601" href="#ftn.id2737601" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="idp4836112" href="#ftn.idp4836112" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4837992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4838664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4839232"></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="id2737630" href="#ftn.id2737630" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
+print after one year.<sup>[<a name="idp4840112" href="#ftn.idp4840112" 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
sell the books as used books; that use—because it does not involve
publication—is effectively free.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin"></a><p>
In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
setting a maximum term of 56 years.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years. And in 1998,
in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
-</p><p>
-
-The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
-works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
-domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
-percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
-Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
-copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
-copyright term.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4848008"></a><p>
+
+Effekten av disse utvidelsene er ganske enkelt å skattlegge, eller forsinke,
+når verk faller i det fri og blir allemannseie. Denne siste utvidelsen
+betyr at allemannseie vil ha blitt skattlagt for trettivi av femtifem år,
+eller 70 prosent av tiden siden 1962. Dermed vil det i de tjue årene etter
+Sonny Bono-loven, samtidig som en million patenter har blitt allemannseie,
+ikke være et eneste opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk som har falt i det fri takket
+være utløp av vernetiden i opphavsretten.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4849672"></a><p>
The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
be those that had some continuing commercial value.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4851072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4851528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4852104"></a><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 "natural" 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 then
-available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
+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
+then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
</p><p>
This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
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 "limited,"
-we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
-</p><p>
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4854424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4855168"></a><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="id2737725" href="#ftn.id2737725" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
-</p><
/div><div class="sect2" title="Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="lawscope"></a>Loven: Virkeområde</h3></div></div></div><p>
-The "scope" 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 "maps, charts,
-and books." That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
+the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="idp4856440" href="#ftn.idp4856440" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
+</p><
a class="indexterm" name="idp4857360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4858080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4858768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4859480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4860168"></a></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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4863272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><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
architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
-author the exclusive right to "publish" 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 "derivative works." 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).
+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,
+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).
</p><p>
This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
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
-"publish" the work, but also the exclusive right of control over any
-"copies" 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 "derivative work" 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.
-</p><p>
+<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
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightmarkingof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxformalities"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawregistrationrequirementof"></a><p>
At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
<span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
government before a copyright could be secured.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4871696"></a><p>
The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
author.
-</p><p>
-All of these "formalities" 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 ©; and the
-copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy available for
-others to copy.
-</p><p>
-Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
-</p><p>
-If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
-copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
-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="id2737862" href="#ftn.id2737862" 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4873112"></a><p>
+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
+©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
+available for others to copy.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4874816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4875920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4876584"></a><p>
+La oss se på et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse
+forskjellene.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact2"></a><p>
+Hvis du i 1790 skrev en bok og du var en av de fem prosentene som faktisk
+registrerte opphavsretten for den boken, så ville opphavsrettsloven beskytte
+deg mot at andre utgivere tok boken din og publiserte den på nytt uten din
+tillatelse. Målet med loven var å regulere utgivere for å hindre denne
+typen urimelig konkurranse. I 1790 var det 174 utgivere i USA.<sup>[<a name="idp4879360" href="#ftn.idp4879360" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> Opphavsrettslovgivingen var dermed en liten
+regulering av en liten andel av et liten del av det kreative markedet i
+USA—utgivere.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs3"></a><p>
The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4884504"></a><p>
Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
</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 "derivative rights."
-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 holder. The
-copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to your
-writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large proportion of
-the writings inspired by them.
-</p><p>
+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
+holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
+your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
+proportion of the writings inspired by them.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4887472"></a><p>
It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright. If I write a
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="id2737943" href="#ftn.id2737943" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
+protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="idp4888984" href="#ftn.idp4888984" 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="id2737989" href="#ftn.id2737989" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
+book.<sup>[<a name="idp4892048" href="#ftn.idp4892048" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
creative work are treated the same.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4893984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4894688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4895104"></a><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 "Mickey
-Mouse," why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse toys and be the one to
-trade on the value that Disney originally created?
+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
+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
derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
originally granted.
-</p><
/div><div class="sect2" title="Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="lawreach"></a>Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><
a class="indexterm" name="idp4896712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4897376"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
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="id2738040" href="#ftn.id2738040" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="idp4901152" href="#ftn.idp4901152" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4903408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
-"Copies." 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 "creative property" deserves the
-"same rights" 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 that in the world with the
-Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> be the trigger for
-copyright law. More precisely, they should not <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span>
-be the trigger for copyright law.
-</p><p>
+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
+that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
+be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
+<span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4907392"></a><p>
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="id2738101" href="#ftn.id2738101" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
+copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="idp4908528" href="#ftn.idp4908528" 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
3.7. 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4909464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4910168"></a><p>
+Vi kan se dette poenget helt abstrakt ved å starte med denne i hovedsak
+tomme sirkel.
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.7. Alle potensielle bruksområder for en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruksområder for en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksthreetypesofusesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightapplicabilityalteredbytechnologyof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtechnologycopyrightintentalteredby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs4"></a><p>
Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
law, because those acts do not make a copy.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
3.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1531.png" alt="Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1531.png" alt="Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
diagram on next page).
-</p><p>
-Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses that
-remain unregulated because the law considers these "fair uses."
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.9. 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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4921008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4921728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><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>.
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.9. Å gi ut på nytt står i midten av denne sirkelen av mulige bruksområder for
+et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1541.png" alt="Å gi ut på nytt står i midten av denne sirkelen av mulige bruksområder for et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4925992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4926584"></a><p>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated. You
are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
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 "fair uses" for public policy (and possibly First Amendment)
-reasons.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.10. Unregulated copying considered "fair uses."</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt='Unregulated copying considered "fair uses."'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
-regul
ated.</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>
+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. Bruk som tidligere var antatt å ikke være regulert er nå antatt å være
+regul
ert.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1551.png" alt="Bruk som tidligere var antatt å ikke være regulert er nå antatt å være regulert."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto"></a><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 "fair" regardless of the copyright owner's views.
-</p><p>
+are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
+owner's views.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4932344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4934840"></a><p>
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use of a
-copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2738047" href="#ftn.id2738047" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
+copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="idp4901752" href="#ftn.idp4901752" 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
into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
burden of this shift.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4936584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4937888"></a><p>
So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
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="idxebooks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkstechnologicaldevelopmentsand"></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
policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
Internet.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork3"></a><p>
Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
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. "Copy and paste" and "cut and paste" 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 troubling with respect
-to transformative uses of creative work.
-</p><p>
+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
+troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuseinternetburdenson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworksfairusevs"></a><p>
Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
-on category 3 ("fair use") 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 about whether I
-have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet, reading did not
-trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need for a fair use
-defense. The right to read was effectively protected before because reading
-was not regulated.
-</p><p>
+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
+about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
+reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
+for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
+because reading was not regulated.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4950576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4951232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4951952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4952720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4953456"></a><p>
This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
use—never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
fair use are not enough.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4955104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4955800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4956464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4957136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4957736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4958424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4959112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
-business of making "trailer" 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>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4963144"></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 "selling by sampling" technique by giving on-line
-stores the same ability to enable "browsing." 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.
-</p><p>
+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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4965400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
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 "fair use" 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>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp4969376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4969960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4972840"></a><p>
Disney countersued—for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
-predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had "willfully infringed" 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 Disney movies to enable
-video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney was now suing Video
-Pipeline for $100 million.
+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
+Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
+was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
</p><p>
Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4974880"></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
-"first-sale doctrine" 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
+<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="idp4976480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4977176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4977816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4978536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4979256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4979976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4980744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4981160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4981568"></a><p>
No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
-</p></div><div class="sect
2" title="Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="lawforce"></a>Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="sect
ion" title="10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4986800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4987328"></a><p>
In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law. The law,
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="id2738557"></a><p>
-There's a famous story about a battle between the Marx Brothers and Warner
-Brothers. The Marxes intended to make a parody of
-<em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers objected. They wrote a
-nasty letter to the Marxes, warning them that there would be serious legal
-consequences if they went forward with their plan.<sup>[<a name="id2738574" href="#ftn.id2738574" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned Warner Brothers
-that the Marx Brothers "were brothers long before you were."<sup>[<a name="id2738592" href="#ftn.id2738592" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> The Marx Brothers therefore owned the word
-<em class="citetitle">brothers</em>, and if Warner Brothers insisted on trying
-to control <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, then the Marx Brothers would
-insist on control over <em class="citetitle">brothers</em>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4988464"></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="idp4991440" href="#ftn.idp4991440" 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="idp4993264" href="#ftn.idp4993264" 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>.
</p><p>
Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
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="idxbooksoninternet2"></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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4997840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4998488"></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
domain. Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
3.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1611.png" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1611.png" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
3.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.13. Liste med tillatelser som utgiveren har til hensikt å gi.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser som utgiveren har til hensikt å gi."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
computer.
-</p><p>
-Here's the e-book for another work in the public domain (including the
-translation): Aristotle's <em class="citetitle">Politics</em>.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
3.14. E-book of Aristotle;s "Politics"</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt='E-book of Aristotle;s "Politics"'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5006256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5006664"></a><p>
+Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
+Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>.
+</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
3.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politics".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politics".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</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"><a class="indexterm" name="idp5010216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5010648"></a><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
3.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt='List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</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 "permissions"— 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="id2738821" href="#ftn.id2738821" 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.
+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
+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="idp5013672" href="#ftn.idp5013672" 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 "lives." Though the e-book says that these are permissions,
-they are not the sort of "permissions" that most of us deal with. When a
-teenager gets "permission" 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 into the computer's memory, that
-means that after I've made ten copies, the computer will not make any
-more. The same with the printing restrictions: After ten pages, the eBook
-Reader will not print any more pages. It's the same with the silly
-restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud button to read my
-book aloud—it's not that the company will sue you if you do; instead,
-if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine simply won't
-read aloud.
-</p><p>
+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
+into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
+computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
+After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages. It's the
+same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
+button to read my book aloud—it's not that the company will sue you if
+you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
+simply won't read aloud.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5016480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5016896"></a><p>
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 "Warner Brothers," erased "Brothers" from the sentence.
+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.
</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
protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
as well?
</p><p>
-We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
-Reader.
-</p><p>
+Vi har kun såvidt berørt overflaten til denne historien. La oss gå tilbake
+til Adobe eBook reader.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxalicesadventuresinwonderlandcarroll"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainebookrestrictionson2"></a><p>
Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on 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:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
-
-
+</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 "permissions"
-indicated, not allowed to "read aloud"!
+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>!
</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;
blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5027544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5028264"></a><p>
The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5029560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5030256"></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="idxaibo"></a><p>
-Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named "Aibo." 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><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo
1"></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
+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>
The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks in addition to
the ones Sony had taught it.
</p><p>
-"Teach" 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 "dog" to make it do new
-tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
-</p><p>
+<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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5036168"></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 "drive," 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.
+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>
Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
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
2739076"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5039248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5039912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5040552"></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
dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5042480"></a><p>
Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show— not
literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
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="id2739121" href="#ftn.id2739121" 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="idp5044000" href="#ftn.idp5044000" 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 "this music cannot be
-copied," and have a computer respect that command. The technology was to be
-part of a "trusted system" of control that would get content owners to trust
-the system of the Internet much more.
+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
exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
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><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp5055456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5056120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5056760"></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 ("DMCA").
+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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5061984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5062384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5062792"></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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5064976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></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
-"<em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>," for example, had testified in that case
-that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
+<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="idp5067296"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
-"Neighborhood" 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 "Neighborhood" off-the-air,
-and I'm speaking for the "Neighborhood" 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 "You are an
-important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions."
-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="id2739370" href="#ftn.id2739370" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
+<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
+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
+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="idp5069776" href="#ftn.idp5069776" 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="idp5073000"></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 3.18. 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
-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></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="idp5076792"></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.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5078024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5078680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5079376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5079768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5080176"></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="id2739509" href="#ftn.id2739509" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
+continue it.<sup>[<a name="idp5083984" href="#ftn.idp5083984" 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="idp5085672"></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
traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
is, in effect, what is happening here.
-</p></div><div class="sect
2" title="Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>Marked: Konsentrasjon</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="sect
ion" title="10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
So copyright's duration has increased dramatically—tripled in the past
thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well—from
three companies control more than percent of the media.
</p><p>
Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2739613"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5091416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5091736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5092152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5092568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5092984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5093408"></a><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, "five
-companies control 85 percent of our media sources."<sup>[<a name="id2739624" href="#ftn.id2739624" 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="id2739636" href="#ftn.id2739636" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The
-"five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable
-subscribers nationwide."<sup>[<a name="id2739649" href="#ftn.id2739649" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2739660"></a>
+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="idp5094296" href="#ftn.idp5094296" 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="idp5095072" href="#ftn.idp5095072" 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="idp5096248" href="#ftn.idp5096248" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
revenues.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5098320"></a><p>
Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well. Today, there are
six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
</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="id2739691"></a>
+article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="idp5099176"></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
-. . . Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They sell
-the content to the public and to advertisers—in newspapers, on the
-broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
+integration. They supply content—Fox movies … Fox TV shows
+… Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
+sell the content to the public and to advertisers—in newspapers, on
+the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
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="id2739716" href="#ftn.id2739716" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
+system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="idp5100672" href="#ftn.idp5100672" 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
outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
thousand words could do:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761
"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761
-pattern-modern-media-ownership"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
-Does this concentration matter? Will it affect what is made, or what is
-distributed? Or is it merely a more efficient way to produce and distribute
-content?
+Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe? Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
+som blir distribuert? Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
+distribuere innhold?
</p><p>
-My view was that concentration wouldn't matter. I thought it was nothing
-more than a more efficient financial structure. But now, after reading and
-listening to a barrage of creators try to convince me to the contrary, I am
-beginning to change my mind.
+Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe. Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
+mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur. Men nå, etter å ha lest og
+hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
+begynt å endre mening.
</p><p>
-Here's a representative story that begins to suggest how this integration
-may matter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2739786"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2739792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2739798"></a><p>
-In 1969, Norman Lear created a pilot for <em class="citetitle">All in the
-Family</em>. He took the pilot to ABC. The network didn't like it. It
-was too edgy, they told Lear. Make it again. Lear made a second pilot, more
-edgy than the first. ABC was exasperated. You're missing the point, they
-told Lear. We wanted less edgy, not more.
+Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
+er viktig.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5106048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5106448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5106840"></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
+piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første. ABC ble fra seg. Du får
+ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear. Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
+ikke mer.
</p><p>
-Rather than comply, Lear simply took the show elsewhere. CBS was happy to
-have the series; ABC could not stop Lear from walking. The copyrights that
-Lear held assured an independence from network control.<sup>[<a name="id2739822" href="#ftn.id2739822" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
+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="idp5108856" href="#ftn.idp5108856" 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
-"independent" 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. "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." "In 1992, 16 new series were produced
-independently of conglomerate control, last year there was one."<sup>[<a name="id2739852" href="#ftn.id2739852" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was
-owned by the networks that ran it. "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%."<sup>[<a name="id2739896" href="#ftn.id2739896" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2739903"></a><p>
+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
+produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
+one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp5112816" href="#ftn.idp5112816" 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="idp5114480" href="#ftn.idp5114480" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5114976"></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
increasingly owned by the network.
-</p><p>
-While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the ownership of
-those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller few. As Barry
-Diller said to Bill Moyers, <a class="indexterm" name="id2739925"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2739931"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5116024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5116440"></a><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,
</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="id2739949" href="#ftn.id2739949" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
+you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="idp5118032" href="#ftn.idp5118032" 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
2739984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5119784"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
-affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the "Innovator's
-Dilemma": 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="id2740001" href="#ftn.id2740001" 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="id2740030"></a>
+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
+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="idp5121616" href="#ftn.idp5121616" 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="idp5123712"></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
You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
-</p><p>
+</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 "war on drugs." 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 collateral damage from the
-war. One advances an argument in favor of drug legalization. The other
-responds in a powerful and effective way against the argument of the
-first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
+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
+collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
+legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
+argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
campaign.
</p><p>
heard then?
</p><p>
No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
-"controversial" 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="id2740144" href="#ftn.id2740144" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
+defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="idp5131680" href="#ftn.idp5131680" 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><
/div><div class="sect2" title="Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="together"></a>Sammen</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><
a class="indexterm" name="idp5125792"></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 "protect my property." 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 "property" 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 "property" 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.
+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
+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
+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>
Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
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="id2740328" href="#ftn.id2740328" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
+known.<sup>[<a name="idp5147712" href="#ftn.idp5147712" 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
between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
undergone. In 1790, the law looked like this:
-</p><div class="
table"><a name="t2"></a><p class="title"><b>Tabell 3.1. </b></p><div class="table-contents"><table summary="" border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Publiser</th><th align="char">TRANSFORM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><br class="table-break"><p>
+</p><div class="
informaltable"><a name="t2"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Publisere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
free.
</p><p>
-By the end of the nineteenth century, the law had changed to this:
-</p><div class="
table"><a name="t3"></a><p class="title"><b>Tabell 3.2. </b></p><div class="table-contents"><table summary="" border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Publiser</th><th align="char">TRANSFORM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><br class="table-break"><p>
+På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
+</p><div class="
informaltable"><a name="t3"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Publisere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law—if published,
which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded. Thus by 1975,
as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
look like this:
-</p><div class="table"><a name="t4"></a><p class="title"><b>Tabell 3.3. </b></p><div class="table-contents"><table summary="" border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Kopier</th><th align="char">TRANSFORM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©/Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><br class="table-break"><p>
-The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
-machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
-remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
-especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
-like this:
-</p><div class="table"><a name="t5"></a><p class="title"><b>Tabell 3.4. </b></p><div class="table-contents"><table summary="" border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Kopier</th><th align="char">TRANSFORM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><br class="table-break"><p>
-
-Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
-not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity— commercial or
-not, transformative or not—with the same rules designed to regulate
-commercial publishers.
-</p><p>
-Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
-no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
-extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
-actually does any good.
-</p><p>
-I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying. But I
-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 7 and 8, 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 "property," 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="id2740673" href="#ftn.id2740673" 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 "copyright"
-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>
-
-We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
-the scope of the interests protected by "property." The very birth of
-"copyright" 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 "fair use" 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 familiar limit on the
-property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And granting archives and
-libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of property notwithstanding, is
-a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a culture (chapter 9). Free
-cultures, like free markets, are built with property. But the nature of the
-property that builds a free culture is very different from the extremist
-vision that dominates the debate today.
-</p><p>
-Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
-to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
-Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
-distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
-that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
-is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
-be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
-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><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733818" href="#id2733818" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (13 August 1813) in
-<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 name="ftn.id2733863" href="#id2733863" 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, "What
-Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together," <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law
-Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733937" href="#id2733937" 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"ferdige versjoner" 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: "Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,"
-<em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424-31.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733967" href="#id2733967" 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 name="ftn.id2734005" href="#id2734005" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
-
-Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
-en "opphavsrettslov." Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2734016"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734241" href="#id2734241" 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 name="ftn.id2734319" href="#id2734319" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
-
-
-A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
-House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
-Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
-Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
-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 name="ftn.id2734385" href="#id2734385" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
-
-Lyman Ray Patterson, "Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,"
-<em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
-fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2733978"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734412" href="#id2734412" 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 name="ftn.id2734435" href="#id2734435" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
-University Press, 1993), 92.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734454" href="#id2734454" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734480" href="#id2734480" 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 name="ftn.id2734525" href="#id2734525" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
-Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
-Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734621" href="#id2734621" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734771" href="#id2734771" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734802" href="#id2734802" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735075" href="#id2735075" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
-
-
-For an excellent argument that such use is "fair use," but that lawyers
-don't permit recognition that it is "fair use," see Richard A. Posner with
-William F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of
-<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>" (draft on file with author), University of
-Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735331" href="#id2735331" 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 "Rip, Mix, Burn" creativity, as
-this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2735260"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735483" href="#id2735483" 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735854" href="#id2735854" 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, "Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." That was later changed,
-without notice, to "Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." E-mail from
-Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735917" href="#id2735917" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Doug Herrick, "Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at the
-Library of Congress," <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 name="ftn.id2736124" href="#id2736124" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t4"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Kopiere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">©/Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
+machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
+remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
+especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
+like this:
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t5"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Kopiere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
+not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity— commercial or
+not, transformative or not—with the same rules designed to regulate
+commercial publishers.
+</p><p>
+Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
+no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
+extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
+actually does any good.
+</p><p>
+I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying. But I
+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 sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
+<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformerne">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
+property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
+notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
+rights<sup>[<a name="idp5170696" href="#ftn.idp5170696" 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
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5173256"></a><p>
-Dave Barns, "Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar
-Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business," <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, "The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,"
-<em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2736407" href="#id2736407" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
+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
+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
+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
+familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
+granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
+property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
+culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
+property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
+different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
+</p><p>
+Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
+to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
+Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
+distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
+that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
+is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
+be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
+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.idp4679056" href="#idp4679056" 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 name="ftn.id2736459" href="#id2736459" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4683448" href="#idp4683448" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
-Lawyers speak of "property" not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle of
-rights that are sometimes associated with a particular object. Thus, my
-"property right" 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 "property" to "lawyer talk," 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 name="ftn.id2736783" href="#id2736783" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
+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
+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
+and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
+26–27.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4722080" href="#idp4722080" 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, "The New Chicago School," <em class="citetitle">Journal of Legal
-Studies</em>, June 1998.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2736848" href="#id2736848" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
-
-Some people object to this way of talking about "liberty." 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 it is meaningless
-to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge has washed out, and
-it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk about this as a loss
-of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of politics with the vagaries
-of ordinary life. I don't mean to deny the value in this narrower view,
-which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do, however, mean to argue
-against any insistence that this narrower view is the only proper view of
-liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we come from a long
-tradition of political thought with a broader focus than the narrow question
-of what the government did when. John Stuart Mill defended freedom of
-speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds, 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, "The Right to Work," 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 disabilities
-by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby making access
-to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States 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="id2736895"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737045" href="#id2737045" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Geoffrey Smith, "Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?"
-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, "Can
-Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?" 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 name="ftn.id2737094" href="#id2737094" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
+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.idp4727616" href="#idp4727616" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
+
+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
+it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
+has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
+about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
+politics with the vagaries of ordinary life. I don't mean to deny the value
+in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
+however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
+only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
+come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
+the narrow question of what the government did when. John Stuart Mill
+defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
+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
+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
+disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
+making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
+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="idp4730952"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4731552"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4731952"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp4732392"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4759632" href="#idp4759632" 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
+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
+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.idp4766912" href="#idp4766912" 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 name="ftn.id2737260" href="#id2737260" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4785208" href="#idp4785208" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
-Environmentalism for the Net?" <em class="citetitle">Duke Law Journal</em> 47
-(1997): 87.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737464" href="#id2737464" class="para">125</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
+Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4823336" href="#idp4823336" 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: "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>" (emphasis
-added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2737480"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737535" href="#id2737535" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
+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="idp4824512"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4830656" href="#idp4830656" 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 name="ftn.id2737601" href="#id2737601" 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.idp4836112" href="#idp4836112" 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,
-"Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright," <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, "Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,"
+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 name="ftn.id2737630" href="#id2737630" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
+498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4840112" href="#idp4840112" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737725" href="#id2737725" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4856440" href="#idp4856440" 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,
-"Indefinitely Renewable Copyright," loc. cit.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737862" href="#id2737862" 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.idp4879360" href="#idp4879360" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
-See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, "Poets, Pirates, and the Creation of
-American Literature," 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).
+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 name="ftn.id2737943" href="#id2737943" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
-
-Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage," <em class="citetitle">Legal
-Affairs</em>, July/August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2737970"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737989" href="#id2737989" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4888984" href="#idp4888984" 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="idp4890848"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4892048" href="#idp4892048" 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 "copies" and derivative works. See Jed
-Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality,"
-<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112 (2002): 1–60 (see
-especially pp. 53–59).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738040" href="#id2738040" 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="idp4893168"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4901152" href="#idp4901152" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
-regulates more than "copies"—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 "copy"; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States
-Code</em>, section 112(a). But the presumption under the existing law
-(which regulates "copies;" 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 name="ftn.id2738101" href="#id2738101" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
+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>;
+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>
+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.idp4908528" href="#idp4908528" 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 name="ftn.id2738047" href="#id2738047" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp4901752" href="#idp4901752" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
-I don't mean "nature" 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 name="ftn.id2738574" href="#id2738574" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
+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.idp4991440" href="#idp4991440" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
-See David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," <em class="citetitle">Law and
-Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172–73.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738592" href="#id2738592" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
+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.idp4993264" href="#idp4993264" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
-Ibid. See also Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2738585"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738821" href="#id2738821" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp4993456"></a> Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan,
+<em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 1–3.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5013672" href="#idp5013672" 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 name="ftn.id2739121" href="#id2739121" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
-
-See Pamela Samuelson, "Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,"
-<em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, "Play
-Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog New Tricks,"
-<em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002; "Court Dismisses
-Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA," <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property
-Litigation Reporter</em>, 11 December 2001; Bill Holland, "Copyright
-Act Raising Free-Speech Concerns," <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May
-2001; Janelle Brown, "Is the RIAA Running Scared?" Salon.com, April 2001;
-Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Frequently Asked Questions about
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5044000" href="#idp5044000" 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>
+<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
<em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
-Legal Case," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2739159"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739370" href="#id2739370" 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="idp5047608"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5069776" href="#idp5069776" 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.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739509" href="#id2739509" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5069968"></a> <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="idp4994288"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5083984" href="#idp5083984" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
-For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, "Legal Fictions,
-Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law," <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los
-Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17 (1997): 651.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739624" href="#id2739624" class="para">142</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>
+<em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
+(1997): 651.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5094296" href="#idp5094296" 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 name="ftn.id2739636" href="#id2739636" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
+of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5095072" href="#idp5095072" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
-Lynette Holloway, "Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to Slide,"
-<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739649" href="#id2739649" 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.idp5096248" href="#idp5096248" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
-Molly Ivins, "Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped," <em class="citetitle">Charleston
-Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739716" href="#id2739716" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
+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.idp5100672" href="#idp5100672" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
-James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em>
-(September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2739732"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739822" href="#id2739822" 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="idp5101880"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5108856" href="#idp5108856" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
-Leonard Hill, "The Axis of Access," remarks before Weidenbaum Center Forum,
-"Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry," 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 name="ftn.id2739852" href="#id2739852" class="para">147</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>
+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.idp5112816" href="#idp5112816" 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 name="ftn.id2739896" href="#id2739896" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5114480" href="#idp5114480" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
-Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739949" href="#id2739949" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
+ibid.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5118032" href="#idp5118032" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
-"Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," <em class="citetitle">Now with Bill
-Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available
-at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740001" href="#id2740001" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
+<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.idp5121616" href="#idp5121616" 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, "The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and
-Market Concepts in Technological Evolution," <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 name="ftn.id2740144" href="#id2740144" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
+2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5131680" href="#idp5131680" 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 "against [their]
-policy." 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, "On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection
-from TV Networks," <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, "Ad Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial
-Advertising on Television and Radio," <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, "Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni
-Rejects Ad," 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 "too controversial." <a class="indexterm" name="id2740191"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2740199"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2740205"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740328" href="#id2740328" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
-
-Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans "fire kapitulasjoner" for
-opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2740169"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740673" href="#id2740673" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
-
+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
+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
+Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
+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="idp5135608"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5136160"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5136552"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5136976"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5137368"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5137776"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5138168"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5147712" href="#idp5147712" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5148272"></a> Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende
+poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for åndsverksloven i den
+digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5170696" href="#idp5170696" 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, "The Disintegration of Property,"
-in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland Pennock and John
-W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, 1980).
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 4. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Kapittel 4. Nøtter</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><p></p><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
-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="id2740805" href="#ftn.id2740805" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
-extraordinarily beautiful, with "sweet water, pasture, an even climate,
-slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent
-fruit." But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an
-opportunity. "In the Country of the Blind," he tells himself, "the One-Eyed
-Man is King." 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 "blind."
-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. "`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!'"
-</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 "the most beautiful thing in the whole of
-creation," understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of what he
-sees "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." "She did not believe," Wells
-tells us, and "she could only half understand, but she was mysteriously
-delighted."
-</p><p>
-When Nunez announces his desire to marry his "mysteriously delighted" love,
-the father and the village object. "You see, my dear," her father instructs,
-"he's an idiot. He has delusions. He can't do anything right." They take
-Nunez to the village doctor.
-</p><p>
-After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. "His brain is
-affected," he reports.
-</p><p>
-"What affects it?" the father asks. "Those queer things that are called the
-eyes . . . are diseased . . . in such a way as to affect his brain."
-</p><p>
-The doctor continues: "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]."
-</p><p>
-
-"Thank Heaven for science!" 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
-"chimera." 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. "But the DNA shows
-with 100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at
-the scene. . . ."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2740900"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2740909"></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 "person" 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, "the copyright wars," the more I think we're dealing with a
-chimera. For example, in the battle over the question "What is p2p file
-sharing?" both sides have it right, and both sides have it wrong. One side
-says, "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." 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 no doubt did as a
-kid: sharing music.
-</p><p>
-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 "friends" beyond
-recognition to say "my ten thousand best friends" can get access. Whether or
-not sharing my music with my best friend is what "we have always been
-allowed to do," we have not always been allowed to share music with "our ten
-thousand best friends."
-</p><p>
-Likewise, when the other side says, "File sharing is just like walking into
-a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with it,"
-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="id2740941"></a>
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
-Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
-Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
-my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
-CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
-California law, at least, is $1,000. According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
-I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
-</p><p>
-The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
-is both—both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
-a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
-need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
-rules should govern it?
-</p><p>
-We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
-with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
-could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
-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="id2741010" href="#ftn.id2741010" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
-
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2741088"></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
-content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
-at all, by social norms but not by law.
-</p><p>
-Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake. Rather than
-embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
-recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
-system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
-awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
-<span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
-alternative. But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
-of the two extremes.
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
-the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
-occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
-a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
-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 "steal" 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 that this power will
-unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing of one cycle of
-innovation around technologies to distribute content. The law is responsible
-for this passing. As the vice president for global public policy at one of
-these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing the DMCA's added
-protection for copyrighted material,
+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="idp5171672"></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>I en velkjent</strong></span> novelle av H. G. Wells,
+snublet en fjellklatrer ved navn Nunez ned en is-skråning inn i en ukjent og
+isolert dal i de Peruanske Andesfjellene.<sup>[<a name="idp5182328" href="#ftn.idp5182328" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> Dalen er utrolig vakker, med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friskt vann, *pasture*, et
+jevnt klima og sletter med rik brun jord med *tangles* av buskas som bar en
+utmerket frukt</span>»</span>. Men landsbybeboerne er alle blinde. Nunez ser
+dette som en mulighet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I de blindes rike</span>»</span>, forteller han seg
+selv, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er den enøyde konge</span>»</span>. Så han bestemmer seg for å slå
+seg ned hos landsbybeboerne for å utforske livet som konge.
+</p><p>
+Ting blir ikke helt som han har planlagt. Han forsøker å forklare ideen om
+syn til landsbybeboerne. De forstår ikke. Han forteller dem at de er
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind</span>»</span>. De mangler et ord for <em class="citetitle">blind</em>.
+De tror han bare er treg. Etterhvert som de oppdager tingene ha ikke kan
+gjøre (for eksempel høre lyden av gress som blir tråkket på), forsøker de
+mer og mer å kontrollere ham. Han blir dermed mer og mer frustrert.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Dere forstår ikke</span>’</span>, ropte han, i en stemme som var ment
+å være storslått og bestemt, og som skar ut. <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Dere er blinde og jeg
+kan se. La meg være i fred!</span>’</span></span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+
+
+Landsbybeboerne lot han ikke være i fred. Og de ser (for å si det slik)
+ikke det fine i hans spesielle krefter. Ikke en gang det ultimale målet for
+hans hengivenhet, en ung kvinde som for han synes <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den vakreste tingen
+i hele skapelsen</span>»</span>, forstår skjønnheten i å kunne se. Ninez sine
+beskrivelser av det han ser <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">virket for henne å være de mest poetiske
+av fantasier, og hun hørte på hans beskrivelser av stjernene og fjellene og
+hennes egen søte hvit-lysende skjønnhet som om det var en skylding
+tilfredsstillelse </span>»</span>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hun trodde ikke</span>»</span>, forteller Wells
+oss, og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hun kunne bare halvveis forstå, men hun var underlig
+gledet</span>»</span>.
+</p><p>
+Når Nuez kunngjør sitt ønske om å gifte seg med sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">underlig
+gledet</span>»</span> kjærlighet, protesterte faaren og landsbyen. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du
+skjønner, kjære</span>»</span>, instruerer hennes far, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">han er en idiot. Han
+har vrangforestillinger. Han kan ikke gjøre noe riktig.</span>»</span> De tar
+Nunez til landsbylegen.
+</p><p>
+Etter en nøye undersøkelse gir legen sin vurdering. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hjernen hans er
+påvirket</span>»</span>, rapporterer han.
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hva påvirker den?</span>»</span> spør faren. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De sære tingene som
+kalles øyene … er sykelige … på en måte som påvirker hjernen
+hans.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Legen fortsetter: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg tror jeg med rimelig sikkerhet kan si at for å
+kunne helbrede han er alt vi trenger å gjøre en enkel og lett kirurgisk
+operasjon—nemlig å fjerne disse irriterte organene [øynene].</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takk gud for vitenskapen!</span>»</span> sier faren til doktoren. De
+forteller Nunez om dette kravet som han må oppfylle for å få sin brud. (Du
+får lese originalen for å lære hvordan historien ender. Jeg tror på fri
+kultur, men ikke på å avsløre hvordan en historie slutter.)
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Det skjer</strong></span> noen ganger at eggene til
+tvillinger sveises sammen i morens livmor. Den sammensveisingen skaper et
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fantasifoster/chimera</span>»</span>. Et fantasifoster er en enkelt
+skapning med to sett med DNA. DNA-et i bloet kan for eksempel være
+forskjellig fra DNA-et i huden. Denne muligheten er et for lite brukt
+handling i mordmysterer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men DNA-et viser med 100 prosent sikkerhet
+at hennes blod ikke var det som var på åstedet. …</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5195448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5196032"></a><p>
+Før jeg hadde lest om fantasifoster, så ville jeg ha sagt at de var umulig.
+En enkelt person kan ikke ha to sett med DNA. Selve ideen med DNA er at det
+er koden til et individ. Likevel er det jo faktisk slik at ikke bare kan to
+individer ha samme sett med DNA (identiske tvillinger), men en person kan ha
+to ulike sett med DNA (et fantasifoster). Var forståelse av en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> bør gjenspeile denne virkeligheten.
+</p><p>
+Jo mer jeg arbeider for å forstå den nåværende
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettskrigen</span>»</span> rundt opphavsrett og kultur, som jeg både
+har kalt urettferdig og ikke urettferdig nok, jo mer tenker jeg at det er et
+fantasifoster vi snakker om. For eksempel i kampen om spørsmålet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hva
+er p2p-fildeling?</span>»</span> har begge sider rett, og begge sider tar feil. En
+side sier, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fildeling er akkurat som om to unger tar opp hverandres
+plater på bånd—akkurat slik vi har gjort det de siste tredve årene
+uten at noen har stilt spørsmål ved det i det hele tatt</span>»</span>. Det er
+riktig, i hvert fall delvis. Når jeg ber min beste venn om å høre på en ny
+CD jeg har kjøpt og i stedet for å bare sende CDen så peker jeg han til min
+p2p-tjener, så er det på alle relevante måter akkurat slik enhver leder i
+ethvert plateselskap uten tvil gjorde som barn: deling av musikk.
+</p><p>
+Men beskrivelsen er også delvis uriktig. For når min p2p-tjener er på et
+p2p-nettverk der enhver kan få tilgang til min musikk, så kan helt klart
+mine venner få tilgang, men det strekker betydningen av
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">venner</span>»</span> forbi bristepunktet når en sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mine ti tusen
+beste venner</span>»</span> kan få tilgang. Uansett om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi alltid har hatt
+lov til</span>»</span> å dele min musikk med min beste venner, så har vi ikke
+alltid hatt lov til å dele musikk med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">våre ti tusen beste
+venner</span>»</span>.
+</p><p>
+Tilsvarende, når den andre siden sier, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fildeling er som å gå inn hos
+Tower Records å ta en CD fra hylla og gå ut av butikken med den</span>»</span>, så
+er det riktig, i hvert fall delvis. Hvis jeg, etter at Lyle Lovett
+(endelig) gir ut et nytt album, i stedet for å kjøpe den går på Kazaa og
+finner et gratis eksemplar jeg kan ta, så er det veldig likt det å stjele et
+eksemplar fra Tower.<a class="indexterm" name="idp5203200"></a>
+</p><p>
+
+
+
+Men det er ikke helt som å sjele fra Tower. Tross alt har Tower Record en
+mindre CD de kan selge når jeg tar en CD fra Tower. Og når jeg tar en CD
+fra Tower Records, så får jeg en bit plastik og et omslag, og noe å vise
+frem på hyllene mine. (Og når vi først er i gang, bør vi også ta med at når
+jeg tar en CD fra Tower Records, så er den masimale boten jeg kan pårda meg,
+i hvert fall i følge loven i California, $1 000. I følge RIAA kan jeg,
+derimot, hvis jeg laster ned en ti-sangs CD, bli ansvarlig for
+$1 500 000 i erstatning.)
+</p><p>
+Poenget er ikke at beskrivelsen fra begge sider er feil. Poenget er at
+begge sider har rett—både som RIAA beskriver det og som Kazaa
+beskriver det. Det er et fantasifoster. Og i stedet for å ganske enkelt
+benekte det den andre siden hevder, så må vi begynne å å tenke på hvordan vi
+kan svare på dette fantasifosteret. Hvilke regler bør styre det?
+</p><p>
+Vi kunne svare ved å ganske enkelt late som om det ikke er et
+fantasifoster. Vi kunne, sammen med RIAA, bestemme at hver eneste fildeling
+bør være en forbrytelse. Vi kan straffeforfølge familier for millioner av
+dollar i skader kun på bakgrunn av at fildelingen skjedde på en av familiens
+datamaskiner. Og vi kan få universiteter til å overvåke all datatrafikk for
+å sikre at ingen datamaskin blir brukt til å gjennomføre denne
+forbrytelsen. Disse svarene er kanskje ekstreme, men hver av dem har enten
+blitt foreslått eller er allerede gjennomført.<sup>[<a name="idp5204368" href="#ftn.idp5204368" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
+
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5212928"></a><p>
+Alternativt kan vi svare på fildeling slik mange unger oppfører seg som om
+vi har svart. Vi kan legalisere det fullstendig. Fjern alt ansvar for
+brudd på opphavsretten, både sivilt og strafferettslig, når en gjør
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale tilgjengelig på nettet. Gjør fildeling som
+sladder: regulert av sosiale normer i stedet for med lov, hvis det er
+regulert i det hele tatt.
+</p><p>
+Begge svarene er mulige. Jeg tror hver av dem ville være en tabbe. I stedet
+for å velge en av disse to ekstremene, så bør vi velge noe som gjenkjenner
+sannheten i begge. Og selv om jeg avslutter denne boken med en sksse til et
+system som gjør akkurat det, så er målet mitt med neste kapittel å vise
+akkurat hvor grufult det ville være for oss om vi adopterer
+nulltoleranse-ekstremet. Jeg tror <span class="emphasis"><em>begge</em></span> ekstremene vil
+være verre enn et rimelig alternativ. Men jeg tror nulltoleranse-løsningen
+vil være den verste av de to ekstremene.
+</p><p>
+
+
+
+Likevel er nulltoleranse i stadig større grad våre myndigheters politikk.
+Midt i dette kaoset som internettet har skapt, finner en ekstraordinær *land
+grab* sted. Retten og teknologien endres til å gi innholdsinnehaverne en
+type kontroll over kulturen vår som de aldri har hatt før. Og i denne
+ekstremiteten vil mange muligheter for nye oppfinnelser og ny kreativitet gå
+tapt.
+</p><p>
+Jeg snakker ikke om mulighetene for unger til å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjele</span>»</span>
+musikk. Min fokus er i stedet på den kommersielle og kulturelle
+nyskapningen som denne krigen også vil ta knekken på. Vi har aldri før sett
+muligheten til å skape spre seg så bredt blant våre borgere, og vi har bare
+så vidt begynt å se nyskapingen som denne muligheten vil slippe fri.
+Likevel har internettet allerede sett slutten på en generasjon av nyskaping
+rundt teknologier for å distribuere innhold. Loven er ansvarlig for at den
+forsvant. Som visepresidenten for global offentlig politikk hos en av disse
+nye oppfinnerne, eMusic.com, formulerte det da han kritiserte hvordan DMCA
+la til vern for opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
-and we want to protect those rights.
-</p><p>
-But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
-labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
-necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
-forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
-industry model.
-</p><p>
-This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
-respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
-digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
-turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
-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="id2741174" href="#ftn.id2741174" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
+eMusic er imot piratkopiering av musikk. Vi er en distributør av
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale, og vi ønsker å beskytte disse rettighetene.
+</p><p>
+Men å bygge en teknologisk festning som inn interessene til de store
+plateselskapene er ikke nødvendigvis den eneste måten å beskytte
+opphavsrettsinteresser, og heller ikke nødvendige den beste. Det er ganske
+enkelt for tidlig å svare på det spørsmålet. Markedskrefter som opererer
+fritt kan godt gi en helt annen indistri-modell.
+</p><p>
+Dette er et kritisk poeng. Valgene som industrisektorer gjør relatert til
+disse systemene vil på mange vis direkte forme markedet for digitale media
+og hvordan digitale medier blir distribuert. Dette påvirker så hvilke valg
+som er tilgjengelig for forbrukere, både når det gjelder hvor enkelt de vil
+være i stand til å få tilgang til digitale medier, og utstyret som de vil
+kreve for å gjøre dette. Dårlige valg som gjøres tidlig i dette spillet vil
+hemme veksten i dette markedet og skade alles interesser.<sup>[<a name="idp5220344" href="#ftn.idp5220344" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of "the
-major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2741196"></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><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
-
-To fight "piracy," to protect "property," 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 "free culture." 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 "intellectual property" is at its greatest in our
-history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2741244"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2741250"></a><p>
-Yet "common sense" 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 "piracy"
-still has play.
-</p><p>
-
-
-There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
-just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
-the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
-protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
-today's monopolists of culture.
-</p><div class="sect2" title="Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="constrain"></a>Constraining Creators</h3></div></div></div><p>
-In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
-These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
-content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
-since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
-sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
-different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
-Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
-the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
-hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
-statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
-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 "capturing and sharing" 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
-"capturing and sharing" 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 contribute to the culture all
-around.
+I april 2001 ble eMusic.com kjøpt opp av Vivendi Universal, et av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
+store plateselskapene</span>»</span>. Selskapets holdning i disse saken har nå
+endret seg. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5222080"></a>
+</p><p>
+Å nå reversere vår tolerante tradisjon vil ikke bare knuse piratvirksomhet.
+Det vil ofre verdier som er viktige for denne kulturen, og det vil drepe
+muligheter som kan være svært verdifulle.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5182328" href="#idp5182328" 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, <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.idp5204368" href="#idp5204368" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5204560"></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
+#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="idp5211968"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5212384"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5220344" href="#idp5220344" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
+
+
+WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
+Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
+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 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>Ved å bekjempe</strong></span>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> for å beskytte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> har
+innholdsindustrien erklært krig. Lobbyering og mange valgkampbidrag har nå
+dratt myndighetene inn i denne krigen. Og som med enhver krig vil en både
+ha direkte og utilsiktet ødeleggelse. Og som med enhver forbudskrig, er det
+mest våre egne folk som lider under disse ødeleggelsene.
+</p><p>
+Så langt har målet mitt vært å beskrive konsekvensene av denne krigen, og
+spesielt konsekvensene for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri kultur</span>»</span>. Men nå er målet mitt
+å utvide denne beskrivelsen av konsekvensene til et argument. Er dette en
+godt begrunnet krig?
+</p><p>
+Etter mitt syn er den ikke det. Det er ingen god grunn nå, for første gang,
+at loven burde forsvare det gamle mot det nye, akkurat når makten til
+eiendomsretten som kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span> er større en
+den noen gang har vært i vår historie.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5227432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5227848"></a><p>
+Likevel ser ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span> det slik. Sunn fornuft er
+fortsatt enig med Causby-ene og innholdsindustrien. Det ekstreme krav om
+kontroll som fremmes på vegne av eiendomsrett aksepteres
+fortsatt. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> avvises fortsatt ukritisk.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5229304"></a><p>
+
+
+Det vil være mange konsekvenser ved å fortsette denne krigen. Jeg ønsker å
+beskrive kun tre. Alle tre kan sies å være utilsiktet. Jeg er ganske
+sikker på at den tredje er utilsiktet, men jeg er mindre sikker om de første
+to. De første to beskytter de moderne RCA-ene, men det er ingen Howard
+Armstrong på flankene for å sloss mot dagens kulturmonopolister.
+</p><div class="section" title="12.1. Legger bånd på skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Legger bånd på skaperne</h2></div></div></div><p>
+I de neste ti årene vil vi se en eksplosjon av digitale teknologier. Disse
+teknologiene vil gjøre det mulig for nesten hvem som helst å lagre og dele
+innhold. Å lagre og dele innhold er naturligvis det mennesker har gjort
+siden historiens begynnelse. Det er slik vi lærer og kommuniserer. Men
+lagring og deling ved hjelp av digital teknologi er annerledes.
+Gjengivelsen og kraften er forskjellig. Du kunne sende en epost og fortalt
+noen om en vits du så på Comedy Central, eller du kan sende selve klippet.
+Du kan skrive et innlegg om inkonsekvenser i argumentene til en politiker
+som du elsker å hate, eller du kan lage en kort film som setter uttalelser
+mot hverandre. Du kan skrive et dikt som uttrykker din kjærlighet, eller du
+kan veve sammen en tråd—en nettfletting— av sanger fra dine
+favorittartister i en collage og gjøre den tilgjengelig på nettet.
+</p><p>
+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
+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
+contribute to the culture all around.
</p><p>
Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
samling med naboer i en liten landsby. Forestill deg så den samme
historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
</p><p>
-Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
-current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
-moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
-offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
-cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
-politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
-topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
-across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
-presumptively illegal.
-</p><p>
+Likevel er alt dette kun mulig hvis aktiviteten antas å være lovlig. I
+dagens juridiske reguleringsregime er det ikke det. La oss glemme fildeling
+et øyeblikk. Tenk på dine fantastiske favorittsteder på nettet. Nettsteder
+som tilbyr oppsummeringer av handlingen for glemte TV-serier, steder som
+samler tegneserier fra 1960-tallet, steder som mikser bilde og lyd for å
+kritisere politikere eller bedrifter, steder som samler avisartikler fra
+smale tema om vitenskap eller kultur. Det er store mengder kreativte verker
+spredt rundt om på internettet. Men slik loven er satt sammen i dag er
+disse verkene antatt å være ulovlig.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5236464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5236872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5237528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5238128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5238560"></a><p>
That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
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="id2741355" href="#ftn.id2741355" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
+$750 million.<sup>[<a name="idp5239616" href="#ftn.idp5239616" 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="id2741391" href="#ftn.id2741391" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
+damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="idp5242032" href="#ftn.idp5242032" 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="id2741427"></a>
-</p><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 "pirates." 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 "illegal art" tour the United
-States.<sup>[<a name="id2740994" href="#ftn.id2740994" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In what does their "illegality"
-consist? In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that
-is critical or reflective.
-</p><p>
+negligently butchering a patient?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5244920"></a><p>
+Konsekvensen av denne juridiske usikkerheten, sammen med desse ekstreme høye
+straffene, er at en ekstraordinær mengde kreativitet aldri vil gjennomføres,
+eller aldri vil gjennomføres åpnelyst. Vi tvinger denne kreative prosessen
+under jorda ved å hevde at de moderne Walt Disney-ene er
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span>. Vi gjør det umulig for bedrifter å basere seg på et
+allemannseie på grunn av at grensene for allemannsienet er laget for å være
+uklare. Det betaler seg aldri å gjøre noe annet enn å betale for retten til
+å skape, og dermed vil kun de som kan betale få lov til å skape. Slik det
+var tilfelle i Sovjetunionen, dog av helt andre årsaker, så vil vi begynne å
+se en verden av undergrunns-kust—ikke fordi budskapet nødvendigvis er
+politisk, eller fordi temaet er kontroversielt, men på grunn av at selve det
+å skape denne kunsten er juridisk skummelt. Allerede har utstillinger med
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ulovlig kunst</span>»</span> vært på turné i USA.<sup>[<a name="idp5246464" href="#ftn.idp5246464" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> Hva består deres <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ulovlighet</span>»</span> i? I
+det å mikse kulturen rundt oss med et uttrykk som er kritisk eller
+ettertenksomt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5250104"></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 10. 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>
-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
-time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
-creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
-purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
-worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
-monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
-them is not similarly free.
-</p><p>
-Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
-in chapter 7, 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.
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
-your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
-defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad—in practically
-every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
-slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
-underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
-For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
-on the rule of law.
-</p><p>
-Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
-"breathing room" 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 "law"
-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 "copyright" 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>
-As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5251928"></a><p>
+Aldri før i vår historie har en maler trengt å bekymre seg om hans maleri
+krenker noen andres verk. Men en moderne maler, som bruker verktøyene til
+Photoshop og deler innholdet på nettet, må bekymre seg for dette hele
+tiden. Bilder er over alt, men de eneste trygge bildene å bruke i
+skapelsesprosessen er de som er kjøpt fra Corbis eller en annen av
+bildebutikkene. Og i denne kjøpsprosessen skjer det sensurering. Det er et
+fritt marked for blyanter. Vi trenger ikke bekymre oss for dets effekt på
+kreativiteten. Men det er en strengt regulert og monopolisert marked for
+kulturelle ikoner, retten til å kultivere og endre på dem er ikke
+tilsvarende fritt.
+</p><p>
+Advokater ser sjelden dette på grunn av at advokater er sjelden empiriske.
+Som jeg beskrev i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, som respons på historien om dokumentarfilmskaper Jon
+Else, har jeg blitt belært gang på gang av advokater som insisterer på at
+Elses bruk var rimelig bruk. Og at jeg derfor tok feil når jeg sa at loven
+regulerer slik bruk.
+</p><p>
+
+
+
+Men rimelig bruk i USA betyr bare en har rett til å hyre inn en advokat til
+å forsvare din rett til å skape. Og som advokater liker å glemme er vårt
+system for å forsvare ens rett utrolig dårlig—i nær sagt enhver
+sammenheng, men spesielt her. Det koster for mye, det leverer for tregt, og
+det som blir levert har ofte liten tilknytning til rettferdigheten i det
+underliggende kravet. Rettssystemet er kanskje tolererbart for de veldig
+rike. Men for alle andre er det pinlig for en tradisjon som ellers liker å
+være stolt av rettssikkerheten.
+</p><p>
+Dommere og advokater kan fortelle hverandre at rimelig bruk gir
+tilstrekkelig <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pusterom</span>»</span> mellom lovregulering og tilgangen som
+loven bør tillate. Men det viser hvor fjernt vårt juridiske system har
+blitt at noen faktisk kan tro dette. Reglene som utgivere pålegger
+forfattere, reglene som filmdistributører pålegger filmskapere, reglene som
+aviser pålegger journalister—dette er de virkelige lovene som styrer
+kreativitet. Og disse reglene har lite til felles med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">loven</span>»</span>
+som dommerne trøster hverandre med.
+</p><p>
+For i en verden som truer med $150 000 i erstatningskrav for et enkelt
+opphavsrettsbrudd gjort med hensikt, og som krever titusener av dollar bare
+for å forsvare seg mot en påstand om å ha brutt oppahvsretten, og som aldri
+vil gi de som er feilaktig anklaget noen av de kostnadene hun ble påført for
+å forsvare sin rett til å uttale seg—i den verden, knebler de utrolig
+vidtrekkende reguleringene som går under navnet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span>
+både tale og kreativitet. Og i den verden kreves det en utstudert blindhet
+for at noen fortsatt skal tro at de lever i en fri kultur.
+</p><p>
+Som Jed Horovitz, forretningsmannen som står bak Video Pipelie sa til meg,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
-being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
-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, "This has been cleared." 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="sect2" title="Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="innovators"></a>Constraining Innovators</h3></div></div></div><p>
-The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story—creativity
-quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
-going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
-expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything. And
-if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
-you.
-</p><p>
+Vi mister [kreative] muligheter over alt. Kreative folk blir tvunget til å
+ikke uttrykke seg. Mange tanker kommer aldri ned på papiret. Og mens en
+masse ting kanskje [fortsatt] blir skapt, så blir det ikke distribuert.
+Selv om tingene blir laget … så får du ikke distribuert det i de
+tradisjonelle mediene med mindre du har en liten lapp fra en advokat som
+sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dette er blitt klarert</span>»</span>. Du klarer ikke en gang å få det
+på PBS uten slik tillatelse. Det er poenget med den type kontroll de har.
+</p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2. Legger bånd på oppfinnere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Legger bånd på oppfinnere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovationhamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinnovationindustryestablishmentopposedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism2"></a><p>
+Historien i den siste delen var en knasende venstreorientert
+historie—kreativitet knust, artister får ikke uttrykke seg, bla bla
+bla. Kanskje slikt ikke overbeviser deg. Kanskje du mener det er nok sær
+kunst der ute, og uttrykk som er kritiske til omtrent alt mulig. Og hvis du
+tenker slik, så mener du kanskje at det er lite i den historien å bekymre
+deg over.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarketconstraints2"></a><p>
But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense. Indeed,
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 "free market" every place I've spoken of "free culture." The
-point is the same, even if the interests affecting culture are more
-fundamental.
+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>
The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
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
2741610"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5268128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5269552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5269960"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
-that I described in chapter 10. 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 "nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley—has been
-learned.
-</p><p>
+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
+Valley—has been learned.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5271584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5272472"></a><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><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
-create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
-distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
-the creators.
-</p><p>
-To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way 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="id2741672"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5275016"></a><p>
+I 1997 etablerte Michael Roberts et selskap ved navn MP3.com. MP3.com var
+ute etter å endre på musikkbransjen. Målet deres var ikke bare å bidra til
+nye måter å få tilgang til innhold. Målet var også å bidra til nye måter å
+skape innhold. Til forskjell fra de store plateselskapene tilbød MP3.com
+opphavspersonene en arena for å distribuere sin kreativitet, uten å kreve et
+eksklusivt engasjement fra opphavspersonene.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5276400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
+Men for å få dette systemet til å virke, trengte MP3.com en pålitelig måte å
+anbefale musikk til sine brukere. Idéen bak dette alternativet var å
+utnytte musikklytternes eksponerte musikkvalg for å anbefale nye artister.
+Hvis du liker Lyle Lovett, så vil du antagelig nyte Bonnie Raitt. Og så
+videre.
</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
service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
the users liked.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5279112"></a><p>
To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
something they had already bought.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
-Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
-by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
-the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
-guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
-as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
-then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
-$54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5282456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5283128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5284888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5285504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5286128"></a><p>
+Ni dager etter at MP3.com lanserte sin tjeneste anla de fem store
+plateselskapene, under ledelse av RIAA, sak mot MP3.com. MP3.com inngikk
+forlik med fire av de fem. Ni måneder senere avgjorde en føderal dommer at
+MP3.com hadde vært skyldig i å med hensikt ha brutt opphavsretten når det
+gjalt den femte. Ved å anvende loven slik den er utformet nå ila dommeren
+MP3.com en bot på $118 millioner. MP3.com inngikk så et forlik med den
+gjenstående saksøker, Vivendi Universal, og betalte mer enn $54 millioner.
+Vivendi kjøpte MP3.com omtrent et år senere.
</p><p>
Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før. Nå kommer konklusjonen.
</p><p>
-After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
-malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
-good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
-legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
-obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
-lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
-was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
-</p><p>
+Etter at Vivendi kjøpte MP3.com, snudde Vivendi seg rundt og saksøkte for
+pliktforsømmelse de advokatene som hadde gitt råd om at selskapet i god tro
+kunne hevde at tjenesten selskapet ønsket å tilby ville bli ansett som
+lovlig i henhold til opphavsretten. Dette søksmålet hevdet at det burde ha
+vært åpenbart at domstolene ville anse denne oppførselen for ulovlig.
+Dermed forsøkte dette søksmålet å straffe enhver advokat som våget å foreslå
+at loven var mindre restrektiv en plateselskapene krevde.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5289016"></a><p>
Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
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
2741776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2741784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2741791"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5290656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5291288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5291944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5292696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5293104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5295392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5295784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5296200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5296608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5297024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5297432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5298784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5299208"></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="id2741804" href="#ftn.id2741804" 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="idp5300040" href="#ftn.idp5300040" 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
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:
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2741847"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><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="id2741863" href="#ftn.id2741863" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Dette er verden til mafiaen—fylt med "penger eller livet"-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 "illegal." 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, that
-uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
-right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
-only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
-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>
+sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <sup>[<a name="idp5260656" href="#ftn.idp5260656" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp5305928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5306568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5307256"></a><p>
+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>
+
+
+
+Poenget er ikke at virksomheter skal ha lov til å starte ulovlig aktivitet.
+Poenget er definisjonen av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ulovlig</span>»</span>. Loven er et rot av
+usikkerhet. Vi har ingen god måte å vite hvordan den bør anvendes på nye
+teknologier. Og likevel, ved å reverse vår tradisjon for juridisk
+hensynsfullhet og omfavne det forbløffende høye straffenivået som pålegges
+av opphavsretten, gir denne usikkerheten nå en virkelighet som er mye mer
+konservativ enn det som er rett. Hvis loven påla dødsstraff for å parkere
+ulovlig, så ville vi ikke bare ha færre ulovlige parkeringer, vi ville også
+ha mye mindre kjøring. Det samme prinsippet gjelder for nyskapning. Hvis
+innovasjon stadig kontrolleres av denne usikre og ubegrensede
+strafferettsansvaret, så vil vi ha mye mindre levende nyskapning og mye
+mindre kreativitet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5311352"></a><p>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
-use. Whatever the "real" 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
+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
generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
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
-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
-content.
+justifying to justify that result.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Usikkerheten</strong></span> i loven er en av byrdene som
+legges på nyskapningen. Det er en annen byrde som virker mer direkte.
+Dette er effekten fra mange i innholdsindustrien som bruker loven til å
+direkte regulere teknologien på internettet slik at den beskytter deres
+innhold bedre.
</p><p>
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
-"bug." 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 "piracy," then, this response says, we should break the
-kneecaps of the Internet.
-</p><p>
+<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
+response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5316360"></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="id2741997" href="#ftn.id2741997" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
-explore a mandatory "broadcast flag" 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="id2742019" href="#ftn.id2742019" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
-
+or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="idp5317192" href="#ftn.idp5317192" 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="idp5319016" href="#ftn.idp5319016" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5320288"></a><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="id2742043" href="#ftn.id2742043" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
+impose.<sup>[<a name="idp5320976" href="#ftn.idp5320976" 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.
</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>Det er en</strong></span> mer åpenbar måte som denne
+krigen har skadet nyskapning—igjen, en historie som vil være ganske
+familiær for de som støtter det frie markedet.
</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 10, 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="id2742077" href="#ftn.id2742077" 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 case of the VCR) has been another.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5323320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5323800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5324224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5324648"></a><p>
+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="idp5326216" href="#ftn.idp5326216" 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
+case of the VCR) has been another.
</p><p>
But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both 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="id2742106" href="#ftn.id2742106" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetradioon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiooninternet"></a><p>
+The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="idp5330760" href="#ftn.idp5330760" 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="id2742141" href="#ftn.id2742141" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
+here.<sup>[<a name="idp5333392" href="#ftn.idp5333392" 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="idp5337272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5337848"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter 4, when a radio station plays a song, the
-recording artist doesn't get paid for that "radio performance" unless he or
-she is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
-version of "Happy Birthday"—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 "Happy
-Birthday" would get some money, whereas Marilyn Monroe would not.
+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
+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.
</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
-"tune in" 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.
+<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>
This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
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="idp5342776"></a><p>
thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
-restrictions. . . . Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
+restrictions. … Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
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="id2742261" href="#ftn.id2742261" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
+shackles.<sup>[<a name="idp5303944" href="#ftn.idp5303944" 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
-"vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"<sup>[<a name="id2742058" href="#ftn.id2742058" 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="idp5346104" href="#ftn.idp5346104" 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="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5348232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5348824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5349384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></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 "Happy Birthday" 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.
+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.
</p><p>
This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
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="id2742321" href="#ftn.id2742321" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
+year.<sup>[<a name="idp5357048" href="#ftn.idp5357048" 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="idp5360976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5361712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5362432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5363152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5363920"></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
transaction</em></span>:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
-name of the service;
+navn på tjenesten,
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-channel of the program (AM/FM stations use station ID);
+kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-type of program (archived/looped/live);
+type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-date of transmission;
+dato for sending;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-time of transmission;
+tidspunkt for sending;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-time zone of origination of transmission;
+tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-duration of transmission (to nearest second);
+varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-sound recording title;
+lydinnspilling-tittel;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-ISRC code of the recording;
+ISRC-kode for opptaket;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
the track;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-featured recording artist;
+spillende plateartist;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-retail album title;
+tittel på album i butikker;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-recording label;
+plateselskap;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-UPC code of the retail album;
+UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-catalog number;
+katalognummer;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-copyright owner information;
+informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-musical genre of the channel or program (station format);
+musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-name of the service or entity;
+navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-channel or program;
+kanal eller program;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
time zone where the signal was received (user);
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-Unique User identifier;
+unik bruker-identifikator;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-the country in which the user received the transmissions.
-</p></li></ol></div><p>
+landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp5373872"></a><p>
The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
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
2742532"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5375448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></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, . . . "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. . . ."
-</p><p>
-And the RIAA experts said, "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>." (Emphasis added.)
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5380872"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5383120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5383792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5384536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5385224"></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 dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
-</p><
/div><div class="sect2" title="Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>Corrupting Citizens</h3></div></div></div><p>
-Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
-dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
-for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
+</p><
a class="indexterm" name="idp5386600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5387344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5388048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5388768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5389464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5390136"></a></div><div class="section" title="12.3. Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
+For mye regulering knebler kretiviteten. Den kveler nyskapning. Den gir
+dinosaurer vetorett over fremtiden. Den kaster bort den ekstraordinære
+muligheten for en demokratisk kreativitet som digital teknologi gjør mulig.
</p><p>
In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
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="id2742619" href="#ftn.id2742619" 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="idp5393224" href="#ftn.idp5393224" 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="id2742311" href="#ftn.id2742311" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
+file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="idp5356456" href="#ftn.idp5356456" 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
awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5397424"></a><p>
Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
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="id2742694" href="#ftn.id2742694" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
+were criminals.<sup>[<a name="idp5398496" href="#ftn.idp5398496" 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="id2742707" href="#ftn.id2742707" 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="idp5399616" href="#ftn.idp5399616" 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="id2742724" href="#ftn.id2742724" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our "free society," 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.
-</p><p>
+that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="idp5400696" href="#ftn.idp5400696" 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.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5402136"></a><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 "ethics." 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 cars. These
-are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the norm. And then we,
-as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to behave
-ethically—how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds separate, or
-honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your 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 "normally" entails a
-certain degree of illegality.
+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
+cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
+norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
+behave ethically—how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
+separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
+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.
</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
incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
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 "sharing." We
-need to be able to call these twenty million Americans "citizens," not
-"felons."
+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>
</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 "use" of the recordings is free.
+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 "free" to copy, or "rip," music from my
-records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed, Apple Corporation went so far as
-to suggest that "freedom" was a right: In a series of commercials, Apple
-endorsed the "Rip, Mix, Burn" capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2742844"></a><p>
-This "use" 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, Baroque,
-Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others—the potential is
+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="idp5410760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></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,
+Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others—the potential is
endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
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 "digital rights management" system.
-</p><p>
+part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5415008"></a><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
the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
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="idp5419296"></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 "collateral damage" that
-"arises whenever you turn a very large percentage of the population into
-criminals." This is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2742956"></a>
-</p><p>
-"Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter," forklarer von Lohmann,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2742970"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5421952"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
+von Lohmann,
</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
+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, "Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a lawbreaker." Well,
-what this campaign against file sharing has done is turn a remarkable
-percentage of the American Internet-using population into "lawbreakers."
+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
+is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
+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
-effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
-</p><p>
-Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
-launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
-names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
-law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
-and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
-user is revealed.
-</p><p>
-
-The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
-sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
-copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
-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="id2743020" href="#ftn.id2743020" 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="id2743061" href="#ftn.id2743061" 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 "fingerprint."
-</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 "cooperating" 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 "criminal." And under the rules that universities are beginning to
-deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2742912" href="#ftn.id2742912" 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>
-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 "contraband" 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="id2743156"></a>
+Og konsekvensen av denne transformeringen av det amerikanske folket til
+kriminelle er at det blir trivielt, i tråd med god rettspraksis, og
+effektivt sett radere ut mye av personvernet som de fleste tar for gitt.
+</p><p>
+Brukere på internettet begynte å se dette generelt i 2003 da RIAA lanserte
+sin kampanje for å tvinge internettleverandører til å overlevere navnene på
+kundene som RIAA trodde brøt opphavsrettloven. Verizon kjempet mot dette
+kravet og tapte. Men en enkel forespørsel til en dommer, og uten å gi
+beskjed til kunden i det hele tatt, blir identiteten til en internetbruker
+avslørt.
+</p><p>
+
+RIAA utvidet så denne kampanjen ved å annonsere en generell strategi om å
+saksøke individuelle brukere av internettet som blir anklaget for å ha
+lastet ned opphavsrettsbeskyttet musikk fra fildelingssystemer. Men som vi
+har sett er de potensielle skadene fra slike søksmål astronomiske: Hvis en
+families datamaskin blir brukt til å laste ned musikk tilsvarende en enkelt
+CD, sa kan familien risikere å måtte betale 2 millioner dollar i
+erstatning. Dette stoppet ikke RIAA fra å saksøke et antall av disse
+familiene, på samme måte som de hadde saksøkt Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="idp5426488" href="#ftn.idp5426488" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
+
+</p><p>
+Selv dette undervurderer spioneringen som blir gjennomført av RIAA. I en
+rapport fra CNN sent sist sommer beskriver en strategi som RIAA har adoptert
+for å spore Napster-brukere.<sup>[<a name="idp5430296" href="#ftn.idp5430296" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Ved å
+bruke en sofistikert hashings-algoritme tok RIAA det som effektivt sett er
+et fingeravtrykk av hver eneste sang i Napster-katalogen. Enhver kopi av
+disse MP3-ene vil ha samme <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint</span>»</span>.
+</p><p>
+Så se for deg det følgende ikke usannsynlige scenariet: Tenk at en venn gir
+en CD til din datter—en samling med sanger lik de kasettene du laget
+som barn. Hverken du eller din datter vet hvor disse sangene kom fra. Men
+hun kopierer disse sangene inn på datamaskinen sin, og tar så maskinen med
+seg til universitetet og kobler den på universitetsnettverket. Hvis
+universitetsnettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samarbeider</span>»</span> med RIAAs spionering, og hun
+ikke har beskyttet sitt innhold på riktig vis (vet du selv hvordan du gjør
+dette?), så vil RIAA kunne identifisere din datter som en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kriminell</span>»</span>. Og i henhold til de reglene som universiteter er
+i gang med å rulle ut,<sup>[<a name="idp5433864" href="#ftn.idp5433864" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> så kan din
+datter miste retten til å bruke universitetets datanettverk. Hun kan i noen
+tilfeller bli utvist.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5438704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5439360"></a><p>
+
+Nå har hun selvfølgelig rett til å forsvare seg selv. Du kan leie inn en
+advokat til henne (til $300 per time, hvis du er heldig), og hun kan hevde
+at hun ikke visste noenting om hvor sangene kom fra eller at de kom fra
+Napster. Og det kan godt hende at universitetet tror henne. Men det kan
+også godt hende at universitetet ikke tror henne. Og som et antall
+universitetsstudenter allerede har lært, forsvinner vår antagelse om å være
+uskylding inntil det motsatte er bevist når en er midt i en forbudskrig.
+Denne krigen er ikke annerledes. Som von Lohmann sier det,
</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
closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
-magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. . . . If forty to sixty
-million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a slippery
-slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty million of
-them.
+magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. … If forty to
+sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
+slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
+million of them.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-When forty to sixty million Americans are considered "criminals" under the
-law, and when the law could achieve the same objective— securing
-rights to authors—without these millions being considered "criminals,"
-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><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740805" href="#id2740805" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
-
-
-H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (1904, 1911). See 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 name="ftn.id2741010" href="#id2741010" 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, "Copyright
-and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World," 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,
-"House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy," <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,
-"Downloading Could Lead to Fines," 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, "RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,"
-<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="id2741078"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741174" href="#id2741174" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
+Når førti til seksti millioner amerikanere i følge loven anses som
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kriminelle</span>»</span>, og når loven kunne oppnå det samme
+målet—sikre rettigheter til forfattere— uten at disse millionene
+anses å være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kriminelle</span>»</span>, hvem er det da som er skurken?
+Amerikanerne eller loven? Hva er amerikansk, en konstant krig mot vårt eget
+folk, eller en felles innsats i vårt demokrati for å endre loven vår?
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5239616" href="#idp5239616" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
+
+Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
+WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
+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="idp5241208"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5242032" href="#idp5242032" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
+ Lovforslaget, som var modellerert etter Califorias *tort reform*-modell, ble
+vedtatt i Representantenes hus men stoppet i Senatet i juli 2003. For en
+oversikt, se Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,'
+Say Tort Reformers</span>»</span>, amednews.com, 28. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps</span>»</span>, CBSNews.com, 9. juli
+2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#39</a>. President Bush har fortsatt å argumentere for *tort reform* de
+siste månedene. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5244016"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5246464" href="#idp5246464" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
-WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
-Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
-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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741355" href="#id2741355" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
-See 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, "MCI Wins
-U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement" (7 July 2003), available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2741378"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741391" href="#id2741391" 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, "Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,' Say
-Tort Reformers," amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and "Senate Turns Back
-Malpractice Caps," 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="id2741415"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740994" href="#id2740994" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
-
-
-
-See Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free," <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 name="ftn.id2741804" href="#id2741804" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Joseph Menn, "Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor," <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, "The
-Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized," 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, "Online Music Services Besieged," <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
+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.idp5300040" href="#idp5300040" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
+
+
+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>
+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
Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741863" href="#id2741863" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5260656" href="#idp5260656" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
-Rafe Needleman, "Driving in Cars with MP3s," <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="id2741879"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741997" href="#id2741997" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
-
-"Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World," 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 name="ftn.id2742019" href="#id2742019" class="para">163</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 takknemlig til
+Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5305160"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5317192" href="#idp5317192" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
+<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.idp5319016" href="#idp5319016" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
+
+
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742043" href="#id2742043" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
-
-See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes, February
-2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742077" href="#id2742077" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
-
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5320976" href="#idp5320976" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
+
+
+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.idp5326216" href="#idp5326216" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
+
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
-Prometheus Books, 2001).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742106" href="#id2742106" 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="idp5326696"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5327264"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5330760" href="#idp5330760" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5330952"></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 name="ftn.id2742141" href="#id2742141" 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 "broadcast flag" 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, "Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
-World," 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="id2742149"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742261" href="#id2742261" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5333392" href="#idp5333392" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5333584"></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="idp5335800"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5336192"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5336608"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5303944" href="#idp5303944" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742058" href="#id2742058" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5346104" href="#idp5346104" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742321" href="#id2742321" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5357048" href="#idp5357048" 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, "Copyright as Entry
-Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution," <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
-Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: "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." <a class="indexterm" name="id2742350"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2742359"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742619" href="#id2742619" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
+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="idp5359800"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5360352"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5393224" href="#idp5393224" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
-Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, "The Music Downloading Deluge," 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
+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 name="ftn.id2742311" href="#id2742311" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5356456" href="#idp5356456" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
-Alex Pham, "The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,"
-<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003, Business.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742694" href="#id2742694" class="para">173</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,
+Business.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5398496" href="#idp5398496" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
-Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, "Alcohol Consumption During
-Prohibition," <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81, no. 2
-(1991): 242.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742707" href="#id2742707" class="para">174</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,
+no. 2 (1991): 242.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5399616" href="#idp5399616" 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 name="ftn.id2742724" href="#id2742724" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, "Tax Compliance,"
-<em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36 (1998): 818 (survey
-of compliance literature).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743020" href="#id2743020" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
-Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants," <em class="citetitle">Washington
-Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs, "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,"
-<em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1;
-Jefferson Graham, "Recording Industry Sues Parents," <em class="citetitle">USA
-Today</em>, 15 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, "She Says She's No
-Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
-25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, "Is Brianna a Criminal?"
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5400696" href="#idp5400696" 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
+(1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5426488" href="#idp5426488" 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>
+<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
+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>
<em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743061" href="#id2743061" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5430296" href="#idp5430296" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
-See "Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses Some
-Methods Used," 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 name="ftn.id2742912" href="#id2742912" 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.idp5433864" href="#idp5433864" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
-See Jeff Adler, "Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,"
-<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City Weekly, 1; Frank
-Ahrens, "Four Students Sued over Music Sites; Industry Group Targets File
-Sharing at Colleges," <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003,
-E1; Elizabeth Armstrong, "Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,"
+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>
<em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
-Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, "Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola; Two
-Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible," <em class="citetitle">Chicago
-Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox, "RIAA Trains Antipiracy
-Guns on Universities," <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, "Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation
-This Fall to Include Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,"
-<em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; "Raid,
-Letters Are Weapons at Universities," <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
+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>
+<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
September 2000, 3D.
-</p></div></div></div><
div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 5. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Kapittel 5. Maktfordeling</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></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.
+</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>
+<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>
burde holde øynene på veien.
</p><p>
Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene. Det har også vært
-min falitt. I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
+min falitt. I de to neste kapitlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
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 class="sect1" title="Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><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><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
-hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
-domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
-</p><p>
-
-Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
-though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
-who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
-producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
-turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
-transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
-accessible—technically accessible—today.
-</p><p>
-Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
-as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
-into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
-permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
-and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
-editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
-Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
-successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
-(<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><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 "noncommercial
-publishing industry," 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="id2743418" href="#ftn.id2743418" 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 10, 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>
-
-
-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 "copyrights should be forever."<sup>[<a name="id2743451" href="#ftn.id2743451" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
-
-</p><p>
-Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
-civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
-would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
-passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
-would make Eldred a felon—whether or not anyone complained. This was a
-dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
-</p><p>
-It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
-constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
-interpretation. And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
-Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
-different. As you know, the Constitution says,
+</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="idxeldrederic"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>I 1995</strong></span> var en far frustrert over at hans
+døtre ikke syntes å like Hawthorne. Det var uten tvil mer enn en slik far,
+men i hvert fall en gjorde noe med det. Eric Eldred, en pensjonert
+dataprogrammerer som bodde i New Hampshire, bestemte seg for å putte
+Hawthorne på nettet. En elektronisk versjon, tenkte Eldred, med lenker til
+bilder og forklarende tekst, ville gjøre denne
+nittenhundretalls-forfatterens verk mer levende.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlibrariesofpublicdomainliterature"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlibraryofworksderivedfrom"></a><p>
+Det virket ikke—i hvert fall ikke for hans døtre. De fant ikke
+Hawthorne noe mer interessant enn tidligere. Men Eldreds eksperiment ga
+opphavet til en hobby, og hobbyen hans ga opphav til et kall: Eldred ville
+lage et bibliotek over verk i det fri ved å scanne disse og gjøre dem gratis
+tilgjengelig.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5458960"></a><p>
+
+Biblioteket til Eldred var ikke bare en kopi av visse verk i det fri, selv
+om en kopi ville vært av stor verdi for folk rundt om i verden som ikke kan
+få tilgang til papirutgaver av disse verkene. I stedet laget Eldred
+avledede verk fra disse allemannseide verkene. På samme måte som Disney
+gjorde Grimm om til historier som var mer tilgjengelige i det tjuende
+århundret, formet Eldred om på Hawthorne og mange andre til noe mer
+tilgjengelig—teknisk tilgjengelig—i dag.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5460184"></a><p>
+Eldreds frihet til å gjøre dette med Hawthornes verk kom fra samme kilde som
+Disneys. Hawthornes <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> hadde falt i det
+fri i 1907. Alle hadde frihet til å ta det uten tillatelse fra boet etter
+Hawthorne eller noen andre. Noen, slik som Dover Press og Penguin Classics,
+tar verk som er falt i det fri og lager papirutgaver som de selger i
+bokhandler rundt om i landet. Andre, slik som Disney, tar disse historiene
+og gjør dem om til tegnefilmer. Noen ganger med suksess
+((<em class="citetitle">Askepott</em>) og noen ganger uten (<em class="citetitle">Ringeren
+i Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure Planet</em>). Disse er
+alle kommersielle publiseringer av verk i det fri.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5462736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5463456"></a><p>
+Internettet skapte muligheten for ikke-kommersiell publisering av verk i det
+fri. Eldreds publisering er bare ett eksempel. Det finnes bokstavlig talt
+tusenvis andre. Hundretusenvis rundt om i verden har oppdaget denne
+platformen for å uttrykke seg og bruker den til å dele verk som, i følge
+loven, kan tas fritt. Dette har skapt det vi kan kalle den
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikkekommersielle utgiverindustrien</span>»</span>, hvilket før internettet
+var begrenset til folk med store ego eller med politiske eller sosiale
+kall. Men med internettet inkluderer det en lang rekke med individer og
+grupper som er dedikert til å spre kultur generelt.<sup>[<a name="idp5465664" href="#ftn.idp5465664" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5470752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5471168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5471592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
+Som jeg sa, bor Eldred i New Hapshire. I 1998 skulle diktsamlingen
+<em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> av Robert Frost falle i det fri. Eldred
+ønsket å legge den samlingen til i hans fritt tilgjengelige bibliotek. Men
+kongressen kom i veien. Som jeg beskrev i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, utvidet kongressen for ellevte gang på
+førti år, vernetiden for eksisterende opphavsrett—denne gang med tjue
+år. Eldred ville ikke stå fritt til å legge inn verker nyere enn 1923 til
+sin samlig før 2019. Faktisk vil ikke et eneste opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk
+falle i det fri før det året (og ikke en gang da, hvis kongressen utvidet
+vernetiden igjen). Som kontrast ville mer enn en million patenter falle i
+det fri i samme periode.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5474384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5476008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5476728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5477136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
+
+
+Dette var Sonny Bono utvidelse av opphavsrettsvernetid-loven (CTEA), lagt
+frem til minne om kongressrepresentant og tidligere musiker Sonny Bony, som
+i følge hans enke Mari Bony mente at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsreten bør vare
+evig</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp5480136" href="#ftn.idp5480136" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5482472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5483160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5483704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5484152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5484600"></a><p>
+Eldred bestemte seg for å sloss mot denne loven. Han valgte først å
+bekjempe den gjennom sivil ulydighet. I en serie intervjuer annonserte
+Eldred at han kom til å publisere som planlagt, på tross av CTEA. Men på
+grunn av en annen lov som ble vedtatt i 1998, NET-loven (Nei til Elektronisk
+Tyveri), så ville det å publisere gjøre Eldred til en kriminell—uanset
+om noen protesteret eller ikke. Dette var en varlig strategi å gjennomføre
+for en handikappet programmerer.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5485312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
+Det var her jeg ble involvert i Eldreds kamp. Jeg var en grunnlovsforsker
+hvis første lidenskap var grunnlovstolkning. Og selv om grunnlovskursene
+aldri fokuserer på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span>-delen av grunnloven, så har det at
+den er forskjellig fra resten alltid slått meg som viktig. Som du vet sier
+grunnloven følgende,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science . . . by securing
-for limited Times to Authors . . . exclusive Right to their
-. . . Writings. . . .
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
-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 "commerce among the several states" or "declare War."
-But here, the "something" is something quite specific—to "promote
-. . . Progress"—through means that are also specific— by
-"securing" "exclusive Rights" (i.e., copyrights) "for limited Times."
-</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 "limited" 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 "on the installment plan," as Professor Peter
-Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2743492"></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
-of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
-existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
-untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
-lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
-to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
-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. "Corruption" not in the sense that representatives are bribed.
-Rather, "corruption" 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 do—and those things that
-pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
-</p><p>
-If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
-very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
-hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
-example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
-valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
-of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
-Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
-</p><p>
-So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
-Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
-expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate. Your financial
-adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
-</p><p>
-
-"Next year," the adviser announces, "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.
-</p><p>
-"There's a proposal in Congress, however," she continues, "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."
-</p><p>
-"Hope?" a fellow board member says. "Can't we be doing something about it?"
-</p><p>
-"Well, obviously, yes," the adviser responds. "We could contribute to the
-campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure that they support
-the bill."
-</p><p>
-You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
-whether this disgusting practice is worth it. "How much would we get if this
-extension were passed?" you ask the adviser. "How much is it worth?"
-</p><p>
-"Well," the adviser says, "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."
-</p><p>
-You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
-conclusion:
-</p><p>
-"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?"
-</p><p>
-"Absolutely," the adviser responds. "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."
-</p><p>
-
-You quickly get the point—you as the member of the board and, I trust,
-you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
-in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
-can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
-greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
-expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
-extended.
-</p><p>
-Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
-bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
-buy further extensions of copyright.
-</p><p>
-In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
-Extension Act, this "theory" 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="id2743686" href="#ftn.id2743686" 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="id2743700" href="#ftn.id2743700" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is
-estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in
-the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2743716" href="#ftn.id2743716" 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 "limited." 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
-not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
-Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
-Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
-granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
-famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
-strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
-</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 "commerce among the several states" (aka "interstate commerce"), 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
-limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
-considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce. A Constitution
-designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
-limit.
-</p><p>
+Kongressen har myndighet til å fremme utviklingen av vitenskapen…ved
+å sikre forfattere, i et begrenset tidsrom, … eksklusive rettigheter
+til sine … skrifter. …
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp5492336"></a><p>
+Som jeg har beskrevet er denne bestemmelsen unik innenfor bestemmelsene som
+deler ut myndighet i artikkel I, seksjon 8, av vår grunnlov. Alle de andre
+bestemmelsene deler ut myndighet til kongressen ved å ganske enkelt si at
+kongressen har myndighet til å gjøre noe—for eksempel til å regulere
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">handel mellom flere stater</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">erklære
+krig</span>»</span>. Men her er dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noe</span>»</span> ganske spesifikt—å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme utviklingen</span>»</span>—gjennom virkemidler som også er
+ganske spesifikke—ved å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sikre</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive
+rettigheter</span>»</span> (det vil si opphavsretten) <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i et begrenset
+tidsrom</span>»</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5495768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5496512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5497208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5497904"></a><p>
+
+I de siste førti årene har kongressen lagt seg på en praksis med å utvide
+eksisterende vernetid i opphavsretten. Det som ga meg hodebry var at hvis
+kongressen hadde myndighet til å utvide eksisterende vernetid, da ville
+grunnlovens krav om at vernetiden skulle være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> ikke
+ha noen praktisk effekt. Hvis kongressen hadde myndighet til å utvide
+vernetiden, hver gang vernetiden holder på å gå ut, så kunne kongressen
+oppnå det grunnloven tydelig forbyr—evigvarende vernetid <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">på
+avbetaling</span>»</span> som professor Peter Jaszi så pent formulerte det.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5500024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5500704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5501416"></a><p>
+Som akademiker var min første reaksjon å vende meg til bøkene. Jeg husker
+at jeg satt sent på kontoret og søkte gjennom nett-databaser etter enhver
+seriøs vurdering av spørsmålet. Ingen hadde noen gang utfordret kongressens
+praksis med å utvide eksisterende verneperioder. Den feilen kan være deler
+av årsaken til at kongressen virket så ubekymret i sin praksis. Det, og det
+faktum at denne praksisen hadde blitt så lukrativ for konressen. Kongressen
+vet at opphavsrettseiere vil være villig til å betale mye penger for å se
+utvidelser i vernetiden for opphavsretten. Og dermed er kongressen ganske
+fornøyd med å fortsatt kunne få disse lettjente pengene.
+</p><p>
+For dette er kjernen i korrupsjonen av vårt nåværende styringssystem.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Korrupsjon</span>»</span> ikke i den forstand at representanter blir
+bestukket. I stedet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">korrupsjon</span>»</span> på den måten at systemet
+legger opp til at de som har fordeler av det som gjøres i kongressens skal
+skaffe og gi penger til kongressen for å legge opp til at bestemte ting blir
+gjort. Det er begresnset med tid, og det er så mye kongressen kan gjøre.
+Hvorfor ikke begrense det den gjør til de tingene den må gjøre— og de
+tingene som betaler seg? Å utvide vernetiden i opphavsretten betaler seg.
+</p><p>
+Hvis det ikke er åpenbart for deg, vurder følgende: La oss si at du er en av
+de heldige få opphavsrettseierne hvis opphavsrett fortsetter å skaffe penger
+ett hundre år etter at den ble tildelt. Boet etter Robert Frost er et godt
+eksempel. Frost døde i 1963. Hans poesi forsetter å væræ svært verdifull.
+Dermed har boet etter Robert Frost store fordeler av en utvidelse av
+opphavsretten, siden ingen utgiver ville betale boet penger hvis diktene
+Frost skrev kunne gis gratis ut av enhver.
+</p><p>
+Forestill deg så at boet etter Robert Frost tjener $100 000 hvert år
+fra tre av diktene til Frist. Og forestill deg så at disse diktene snart
+faller i det fri. Du sitter i styret for boet etter Robert Frost. Din
+økonomirådgiver kommer til styremøtet med en veldig dyster rapport:
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neste år</span>»</span>, kunngjør rådgiveren, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vil verkene A, B og C
+falle i det fri. Det betyr at etter neste år vil vi ikke lenger motta den
+årlige vederlags-sjekken på $100 000 fra utgiverne av disse
+verkene.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men det er et forslag i kongressen</span>»</span>, forsetter hun, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som
+kan endre dette. Noen kongressrepresentanter har lansert et lovforslag om å
+utvide vernetiden i opphavsretten med tjue år. Det forslaget vil være
+ekstremt verdifullt for oss. Så vi bør håpe at den loven blir
+vedtatt.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Håpe?</span>»</span>, sier en kollega i styret. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kan vi ikke gjøre
+mer enn det?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, jo, selvfølgelig</span>»</span>, svarer rådgiveren. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi kan
+bidra til valgkampanjene til et antall representanter for å forsøke å sikre
+at de vil støtte lovforslaget.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Du hater politikk. Du hater å bidra til valgkampanjer. Så du ønsker å vite
+hvorvidt denne motbydelige praksisen er verdt det. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvor mye vil vi
+få hvis denne utvidelsen blir vedtatt?</span>»</span> spør du rådgiveren.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvor mye er det verdt?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel</span>»</span>, sier rådgiveren og fortsetter. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du er sikker
+på at du vil fortsette å få minst $100 000 i året for disse
+opphavsrettene, og du bruker samme <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">diskonteringssats</span>’</span> som vi
+bruker for å vurdere eiendomsinvesteringer (6 prosent), så vil denne loven
+være verdt $1 146 000 til boet.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Du blir litt sjokkert over tallet, men du kommer raskt frem til riktig
+konklusjon:
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Så du sier at det vil være verdt det for oss å betale mer enn
+$1 000 000 i valgkampbidrag hvis vi var trygge på at disse
+bidragene ville sikre at loven ble vedtatt?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aboslutt</span>»</span>, svarer rådgiveren. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er verdt det hvis du
+bidrar med opp til dagens verdi av inntektene du forventer fra disse
+opphavsrettene. Hvilket for oss betyr over $1 000 000.</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+
+Du tar raskt poenget—du som medlem av styret og, regner jeg med, du
+som leser. Hver gang opphavsretten holder på å løpe ut, har hver eneste
+mottaker i samme posisjon som boet etter Robert Frost det samme valget: Hvis
+de bidrar til å få en lov vedtatt som utvider opphavsretten så vil de ha
+stor nytte av den utvidelsen. Så hver eneste gang opphavsretten er i ferd
+med å løpe ut, så er det en massiv lobbyering for å få
+opphavsrettsvernetiden utvidet.
+</p><p>
+Dermed har vi en kongressbasert evighetsmaskin: Så lenge lovgiving kan
+kjøpes (riktignok indirekte), så vil det være alle insentiver i verden for å
+kjøpe ytterligere utvidelser av opphavsretten.
+</p><p>
+I lobbyeringen som førte til at Sonny Bono utvidelse av
+opphavsrettsvernetid-loven ble vedtatt ble denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">teorien</span>»</span> om
+insentiver bevist å være riktig. Ti av de tretten originale sponsorene til
+loven i overhuset mottok maksimalt bidrag fra Disneys politiske
+handlingskomite. I senatet mottok åtte av de tolv sponsorene
+bidrag.<sup>[<a name="idp5517576" href="#ftn.idp5517576" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> RIAA og MPAA er estimert å ha
+brukt mer enn $1,5 lobby-millioner i 1998-valgperioden. De betalte ut mer
+enn $200 000 i kampanjebidrag.<sup>[<a name="idp5512296" href="#ftn.idp5512296" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup>
+Disney er estimert å ha bidratt med mer enn $800 000 i
+gjenvelgelseskampaner den perioden.<sup>[<a name="idp5519744" href="#ftn.idp5519744" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
+
+</p><p>
+<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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5522992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5523760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5524480"></a><p>
+
+Det var også min vurdering at <span class="emphasis"><em>denne</em></span> høyesteretten ikke
+ville tillate kongressen å utvide den eksisterende vernetiden. Som alle som
+kjenner høyestretts arbeid vet, har denne retten i stadig større grad
+begrenset myndigheten til kongressen når den har vurdert at kongressens
+vedtak går ut over myndigheten tildelt dem i grunnloven. Blant
+grunnlovsforskere var det mest berømte eksemplet på denne trenden
+avgjørelsen fra høyesterett i 1995 om å slå ned på en lov som forbød
+besittelse av våpen nær skoler.
+</p><p>
+Siden 1937 hadde høyesterett tolket kongressens tildelte myndighet svært
+bredt. Så mens grunnloven gir kongressen myndighet til å kun regulere
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">handel mellom stater</span>»</span> (aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mellomstatlig
+handel</span>»</span>), så hadde høyesterett tolket den myndigheten til å inneholde
+myndigheten til å regulere enhver aktivitet som kun berører mellomstatlig
+handel.
+</p><p>
+Etter hvert som økonomien vokste, betød denne standarden i stadig større
+grad at det ikke var noen grenser for kongressens myndighet til å regulere,
+siden omtrent hver eneste aktivitet, når en vurderte det på nasjonal skala,
+påvirker mellomstatlig handel. En grunnlov utformet for å begrense
+kongressens myndighet ble istedet tolket til å ikke ha noen grense.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5528576"></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>
-"We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments," the
-Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2743806" href="#ftn.id2743806" 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="id2743833" href="#ftn.id2743833" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
+<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="idp5530632" href="#ftn.idp5530632" 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="idp5532400" href="#ftn.idp5532400" 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="id2743853" href="#ftn.id2743853" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="idp5533792" href="#ftn.idp5533792" 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 "stopping point" 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.
+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.
</p><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle. Many believed the
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 "fidelity" 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.
-</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 "legal piracy."<sup>[<a name="id2743933" href="#ftn.id2743933" 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.
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5537456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5538016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5538584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5539144"></a><p>
+<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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5540320"></a><p>
+Noen folk ser på allemannseiet med forakt. I notatet de sendt til
+høyesterett, skrev Nashville sangforfatterforening at allemannseiet ikke var
+noe annet enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovlig piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp5542376" href="#ftn.idp5542376" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> Men det er ikke piratvirksomhet når loven tillater
+det. Og i vårt konstituelle system krever loven dette. Noen liker kanskje
+ikke kravene i grunnloven vår, men det gjør ikke grunnloven til en
+piratkodeks.
</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 "Rhapsody in Blue." 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="id2743992" href="#ftn.id2743992" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
-
-</p><p>
-
-Think practically about the consequence of this extension—practically,
-as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
-10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
-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>
-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
-authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
-records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
-under copyright.
-</p><p>
-Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
-current copyright owners. How would you do that?
-</p><p>
-Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
-somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
-thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
-</p><p>
-But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
-the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
-how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
-records—especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
-the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
-</p><p>
-"But there isn't a list of who owns property generally," the apologists for
-the system respond. "Why should there be a list of copyright owners?"
-</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
-to cars. And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
-good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
-your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
-pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
-</p><p>
-
-So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
-by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
-ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
-bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
-easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
-lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
-kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
-property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
-proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
-</p><p>
-Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library. The
-library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
-described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
-course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
-estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
-hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
-located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
-property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
-to be used.
-</p><p>
-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="id2744125"></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
-1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
-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, "Roach has sold about 60,000
-videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent films."<sup>[<a name="id2744147" href="#ftn.id2744147" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2744164"></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
-the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
-a whole generation of American film.
-</p><p>
-
-His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
-continuing commercial value. The rest—to the extent it survives at
-all—sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
-not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
-the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
-must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
-</p><p>
-We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs. For most
-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="id2744201" href="#ftn.id2744201" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
-
-</p><p>
-Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
-Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
-addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
-And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
-locate the copyright owner.
-</p><p>
-Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
-only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
-a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
-many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
-number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
-exceptionally high.
-</p><p>
-"But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
-copyright owner when she shows up?" 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
-getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
-won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
-have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
-talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
-</p><p>
-
-For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
-costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
-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><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 "engine of free expression."
-</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
-go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
-film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving. And when a
-creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
-commercial life ends.
-</p><p>
-Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
-libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes & Noble, and we don't
-have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
-Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
-news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
-valuable—for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
-knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
-made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
-</p><p>
-
-Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression. In
-this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
-context do no good.
-</p><p>
-Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
-history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
-<span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
-exclusive right. When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
-publisher. But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
-used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
-copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
-commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
-</p><p>
-The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
-film—the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs—were so high,
-it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
-of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
-commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
-of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
-</p><p>
-In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
-history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
-their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
-interfered with anything.
-</p><p>
-But this situation has now changed.
-</p><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
-of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
-it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
-distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
-forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
-passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
-universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
-</p><p>
-
-
-And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
-digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
-copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
-of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
-our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
-available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
-explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
-radically different context.
-</p><p>
-Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
-technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
-the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
-<span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
-enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
-culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
-is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
-knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
-expression. Copyright is a brake.
-</p><p>
-You may well ask, "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?"
-</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 "the market" 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>
-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
-doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
-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="id2744431" href="#ftn.id2744431" 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 "limited Times" requirement, and (2) that extending terms by
-another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Det er verdifull</strong></span> opphavsrett som er
+ansvarlig for at verneperioden blir utvidet. Mikke Mus og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody
+in Blue</span>»</span>. Disse verkene er for verdifulle til at opphavsrettseierene
+kan ignorere dem. Men den egentlige skaden fra opphavsrettsutvidelser for
+vårt samfunn er ikke at Mikke Mus forblir Disneys. Glem Mikke Mus. Glem
+Robert Frost. Glem alle verk fra tjue-tallet og tredve-tallet som fortsatt
+har kommersiell verdi. Den egentlige skaden fra utvidelse av vernetiden
+kommer ikke fra disse berømte verkene. Den egenelige skaden er fra de
+verkene som ikke er berømte, ikke kommersielt utnytttet, og dermed heller
+ikke lenger tilgjengelig.
+</p><p>
+Hvis du ser på arbeider laget i de første tjue årene (1923 til 1942)
+påvirket av Sonny Bono utvidelse av opphavsrettsvernetid-loven, så har 2
+prosent av disse verkene fortsatt kommersielle verdi. Det var
+opphavsrettsinnehaverne for disse 2 prosentene som fikk igjennom CTEA. Men
+loven og dens effekt var ikke begresnet til disse 2 prosentene. Loven
+utvidet vernetiden til opphavsretten generelt.<sup>[<a name="idp5548080" href="#ftn.idp5548080" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
+
+</p><p>
+
+Tenk praktisk om konsekvensen av denne utvidelsen—praktisk som en
+forretningsmann, ikke som en advokat ivrig etter mer juridisk arbeide. I
+1930 ble 10047 bøker publisert. I 2000 var 174 av disse bøkene fortsatt
+tilgjengelig fra forlaget. La oss anta at du var Brewster Kahle, og du
+ønsket å gjøre de resterende 9873 tilgjengelig for verden i ditt
+iArkiv-prosjekt. Hva ville du måtte gjøre?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5551016"></a><p>
+Vel, først må du finne ut hvilke av disse 9873 bøkene som fortsatt er vernet
+av opphavsretten. Det krever at du går til biblioteket (den informasjonen
+er ikke tilgjengelig på nettet) og blar igjennom haller med bøker mens du
+kryss-sjekker titler og forfatterne av disse 9873 bøkene med
+opphavsrettsregistreringene og fornyingsmeldingene for verker publisert i
+1930. Dette vil gi en liste med bøker som fortsatt er vernet av
+opphavsretten.
+</p><p>
+Så for bøkerne som fortsatt er vernet av opphavsretten må en finne de
+nåværende opphavsrettseiere. Hvordan vil du gjøre det?
+</p><p>
+De fleste folk tenker at det må være en liste over disse opphavsrettseierne
+en eller annen plass. Praktiske folk tenker slik. Hvordan kan det være
+tusener på tusener av monopoler delt ut av myndighetene uten at det i hvert
+fall finnes en liste?
+</p><p>
+Men det er ingen liste. Det kan være et navn fra 1930, og deretter i 1959,
+for personen som registrerte opphavsretten. Men bare tenkt praktisk rundt
+hvor utrolig vanskelig det vil være å spore opp tusenvis av slike
+arkivoppføringer—spesielt siden personen som er registrert ikke
+nødvendigvis er den nåværende eier. Og vi snakker kun om 1930!
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men det er ikke generelt en liste over hvem som eier eiendom</span>»</span>
+svarer forsvarerne av systemet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor skulle det finnes en liste
+over opphavsrettseiere?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Vel, egentlig, når du tenker på det, så <span class="emphasis"><em>finnes</em></span> det
+mange lister over hvem som eier hvilken eiendom. Tenk på skjøter for hus,
+eller hvem som eier biler. Og der det ikke finnes en liste, så er koden for
+den virkelige verden ganske god til å foreslå hvem som eier en bit eiendom
+(en huske plassert i bakhagen din er sannsynlig vis din) Så formelt eller
+uformelt har vi en ganske god måte å vite hvem som eier hvilken håndgripelig
+eiendom.
+</p><p>
+
+Dermed: Du vandrer ned en gate og ser et hus. Du kan vite hvem som eier
+huset ved å slå opp i kommunehusets register. Hvis du ser en bil, så er det
+normal et bilskilt som vil knytte eieren til bilen. Hvis du ser en haug med
+barneleker som ligger på plenen forran et hus, så er det rimelig enkelt å
+finne ut hvem som eier lekene. Og hvis du tilfeldigvis ser en baseball som
+ligger i grøfta på siden av veien, så se deg rundt et øyeblikk etter unger
+som spiller ball. Hvis du ikke ser noen barn, så ok: her er det en bit
+eiedom hvis eier vi ikke enkelt kan lokalisere. Dette er unntaket som
+bekrefter regelen: at vi normalt vet veldig godt hvem som eier hvilken
+eiendom.
+</p><p>
+Sammenlig denne historien med immateriell eiendom. Du går inn i et
+bibliotek. Biblioteket eier bøkene. Men hvem eier opphavsretten? Som jeg
+allerede har beskrevet, så finnes det ingen liste med opphavsrettseiere.
+Det er navnene til forfattere, naturligvis, men deres opphavsrett kan ha
+blitt overført, eller blitt arvet til et bo lik bestemors gamle smykker.
+For å vite hvem som eier hva, så må du hyre en privatdetektiv. Det en
+sitter igjen med er at eieren kan ikke enkelt finnes. Og med et regime som
+vårt, der det er en forbrytelse å bruke slik eiendom uten tillatelse fra
+eiendomseieren, så vil eiendommen ikke bli brukt.
+</p><p>
+Konsekvensen men gamle bøker er at de ikke vil bli digitalisert, og dermed
+ganske enkelt vil rotne bort på hyller. Men konsekvensen for andre kreative
+arbeider er mye mer alvorlig.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5559640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5560056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5560480"></a><p>
+Se på historien til Michael Agee, styreleder ved Hal Roach Studios, som eier
+opphavsrettene for Helan og Halvan-filmene. Agee har dermed direkte fordel
+av Bono-loven. Helan og Halvan-filmene ble laget mellom 1921 og 1951. Kun
+en av disse filmene, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky Dog</em>, har så langt falt
+i det fri. Men hadde det ikke vært for CTEA, ville filmer laget etter 1923
+begynt å falle i det fri. Da Agee kontrollerer de eksklusive rettighetene
+for disse populære filmene så tjener an en god del penger. I følge et
+estimat, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">har Roach solgt omtrent 60 000 videokassetter og
+50 000 DVDer av filmene til denne stumfilmduoen.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="idp5562432" href="#ftn.idp5562432" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+Likevel gikk Agee mot CTEA. Hans begrunnelse en sjelden dyd i denne
+kulturen: uselviskhet. Han argumenterte i sitt innlegg foran høyesteretten
+at Sonny Bono utvidelse av opphavsrettsvernetid-loven vil, hvis den ble
+stående, ødelegge en hel generasjon med amerikansk film.
+</p><p>
+
+Argumentet hans er enkelt. En liten brøkdel av disse verkene har vedvarende
+kommersiell verdi. Resten—i den grad de overlever i det hele
+tatt—ligger i et hvelv og samler støv. Det kan være være at at noen
+av disse verkene som nå ikke er kommersielt verdifulle vil bli vurdert å
+være verdifulle av eierne av hvelvene. For at det skal skje, må den
+kommersielle gevinsten fra verkene overstige kostnaden med å gjøre verket
+tilgjengelig for distribusjon.
+</p><p>
+Vi kan ikke vite gevinsten, men vi vet mye om konstnadene. For det meste av
+filmhistorien har kostnaden med å restaurere film vært veldig høy. Digital
+teknologi har redusert disse konstnadene betydelig. Mens det i 1993 kostet
+mer enn $10 000 for å restaurere en nittiminutters sort-hvit-film, så
+kan det nå koste så lite som $100 a digitalisere en times
+8-millimeterfilm.<sup>[<a name="idp5519856" href="#ftn.idp5519856" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
+
+</p><p>
+Restaureringsteknologien er ikke den eneste kostnaden, og heller ikke den
+viktigste. Advokater er også en kostnad, og i stadig større grad, en veldig
+viktig del. I tillegg til å preservere filmen, så må en distributør sikre
+seg rettighetene. Og for å sikre seg rettighetene til en film som er vernet
+av opphavsretten, så må du finne opphavsrettseieren.
+</p><p>
+Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, <span class="emphasis"><em>eiere</em></span>. Som vi har sett
+er det ikke bare en enkelt opphavsrett tilknyttet en film. Det er mange.
+Det er ikke en enkelt person som du kan kontakte om disse opphavsrettene.
+Det er like mange som det er opphavsretter knyttet til den, hvilket viser
+seg kan være et ekstremt høyt tall. Dermed blir kostnaden med å klarere
+rettighetene for disse filmene eksepsjonelt høy.
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men kan du ikke bare restaurere filmen, distribuere den, og så betale
+opphavsrettseieren når hun dukker opp?</span>»</span> Jovisst, hvis du ønsker å
+gjøre deg selv til kriminiell. Og selv om du ikke er bekymret over å begå
+en forbrytelse, så vil hun når hun dukker opp ha rett til å saksøke deg for
+all fortjeneste du har hatt. Så hvis du lykkes, så kan du være rimelig
+sikker på at du får besøk fra noens advokat. Og hvis du ikke lykkess, så
+vil du ikke ha tjent nok til å dekke konstnaden for din egen advokat.
+Uansett vil du være nødt til å snakke med en advokat. Og det å si at du må
+snakke med en advokat er ofte det samme som å si at du ikke vil tjene noen
+penger.
+</p><p>
+
+For noen filmer kan det hende gevinsten fra å gi ut filmen vil overskride
+disse kostnadene. Men for de aller fleste av dem er det ingen mulighet for
+at gevinsten vil oppveie de juridiske kostnadene. Dermed vil de aller fleste
+gamle filmer, argumenterte AGee, ikke bli restaurert og distribuert før
+opphavsretten løper ut.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5573496"></a><p>
+Men innen opphavsretten for disse filmene er utløpt, vil filmen ha gått
+tapt. Disse filmene ble produsert på nitrat-baserte filmruller, og
+nitratfilm går i oppløsning over tid. De vil være borte, og metalleskene
+der de nå blir lagret vil kun inneholde støv.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Av alle de</strong></span> kreative verk produsert av
+mennesker i verden, så er det kun en liten brøkdel som fortsetter å ha
+kommersiell verdi. For en liten brøkdel er opphavsretten en kritisk viktig
+juridisk mekanisme. For den lille brøkdelen skaper opphavsretten insentiver
+til å produsere og distribuere kreative verker. For den lille brøkdelen
+fungerer opphavsrett som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">motor for uttrykksfrihet</span>»</span>.
+</p><p>
+Men selv for denne lille brøkdelen, så er den faktiske tiden som det
+kreative arbeidet har kommersiellt liv ekstremt kort. Som jeg indikerte
+tidligere blir de fleste bøker utsolgt fra forlaget innen et år. Det samme
+er sant for musikk og film. Kommersiell kultur er som et rovdyr. Den må
+fortsette å bevege seg. Og når et kreativt arbeid ikke lenger får godviljen
+fra en kommersell distributør, så tar det kommersielle livet slutt.
+</p><p>
+Likevel betyr ikke dette at livet til det kreative arbeidet tar slutt. Vi
+har ikke biblioteker for å konkurrere med Barnes & Noble og vi har ikke
+filmarkiver fordi vi forventer at folk skal velge mellom å tilbringe
+fredagskvelden med å se nye filme eller tilbringe fredagskvelden med å se en
+nyhetsdokumentar fra 1930. Det ikke-kommersielle livet til kulturen er
+viktig og verdifullt—for underholdning men også, og viktigere, for
+kunnskap. For å forstå hvem vi er, hvor vi kom fra og hvordan vi gjorde de
+feil vi har gjort, så må vi ha tilgang til denne historien.
+</p><p>
+
+Opphavsretten i denne sammenhengen utgjør ikke en motor for uttrykksfrihet.
+I denne sammenhengen er det ikke behov for en eksklusiv rettighet.
+Opphavsretten i denne sammenhengen bidrar ikke positivt.
+</p><p>
+Men for det meste av vår historie gjorde den liten skade. For det meste av
+vår historie, når det kommersielle livet til et verk tok slutt, så var det
+ikke noe <span class="emphasis"><em>opphavsrettsrelatert bruk</em></span> som ville bli
+blokkert av en eksklusiv rett. Når en bok ble utsolgt fra forlaget, så
+kunne du ikke kjøpe det fra et forlag. Men du kunne fortsatt kjøpe den fra
+en brukbokhandel. Og når en bruktbokhandel selger den, i hvert fall i
+Amerika, så er det ikke nødvendig å betale noe til opphavsrettseieren.
+Dermed var den vanlige bruken av en bok etter at det kommersielle livet tok
+slutt en bruk som var uavhengig av opphavsrettslov.
+</p><p>
+Det samme var praktisk sett sant også for film. På grunn av kostnadene med
+å restaurere en film—de egentlige økonomiske kostnadene, ikke
+advokatkoastnadene—var så høye, så var det aldri praktisk mulig å ta
+vare på eller restaurere film. Omtrent som med restene etter en flott
+middag, når den er over så er den over. Når det kommersielle livet til en
+film var over, så kan den ha blitt arkivert en stund, men det var slutten på
+filmens liv så lenge markedet ikke hadde noe mer å tilby.
+</p><p>
+Med andre ord, selv om opphavsrettsbeskyttelsen har vært relativt kort for
+det meste av vår historie, sa ville ikke lang opphavsrettsbeskyttelse gjort
+noe forskjell for arbeider som har mistet sin kommersielle verdi. Lang
+opphavsrettsbeskyttelse for disse verkene ville ikke forstyrret noe.
+</p><p>
+Men denne situasjonen er nå endret.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
+En veldig viktig konsekvens av fremveksten av digitale teknologier er å
+muliggjøre arkivet som Brewster Kahle drømmer om. Digitale teknologier gjør
+det nå mulig å ta vare på og gi tilgnag til alle typer kunnskap. Når en bok
+er utsolgt fra forlaget, så kan vi forestille oss å digitalisere den og
+gjøre den tilgjengelig for alle, til evig tid. Når en film ikke lenger er
+tilgjengelig fra distributør kan vi digitalisere den og gjøre den
+tilgjengleig for alle, til evig tid. Digitale teknologier gir nytt til vil
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale etter at det trer ut av sitt kommersielle
+liv. Det er nå mulig å ta vare på og sikre universell tilgang til denne
+kunskapen og kulturen, mens det tidligere ikke var mulig.
+</p><p>
+
+
+Og nå kommer opphavsrettsloven i veien. Hvert steg som trengs for å
+produsere dette digitale arkivet over vår kultur krenker den eksklusive
+retten i opphavsretten. Å digitalisere en bok er å kopiere den. For å
+gjøre det må en ha tillatelse fra opphavsrettseieren. Det samme gjelder
+musikk, film og ethvert annet aspekt av vår kultur som er beskyttet av
+opphavsretten. Innsatsen som trengs for å gjøre disse tingene tilgjengelig
+for fremtiden, eller til forskere, eler for de som bare ønsker å utforske
+den, er nå hindret av det sett med regler som ble skrevet for en radikalt
+forskjellig omgivelse.
+</p><p>
+Her er kjernen av skaden som kommer fra å utvide verneperiodene: Nå som
+teknolgi gjør det mulig for oss å gjenoppbygge biblioteket i Alexandria,
+kommer loven i veien. Og den kommer ikke i veien på grunn av et nyttig
+<span class="emphasis"><em>opphavsretts</em></span>-formål,, som jo er å gjøre det mulig for
+det kommersielle markedet å spre kultur. Nei, vi snakker om kultur etter at
+den levd sitt kommersielle liv. I denne sammenhengen tjener opphavsretten
+ikke noe formål <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt</em></span>, relatert til spredning
+av kunskap. I denne sammenhengen er ikke opphavsrett en motor for
+uttrykksfrihet. Opphavsrett er en bremse.
+</p><p>
+Du kan godt spørre, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men hvis digitale teknologier reduserer kostnaden
+for Brewster Kahle, så reduserer de også kostnadene for Random House. Vil
+da ikke Random House spre kultur like vidt som Brewster Kahle?</span>»</span>
+</p><p>
+Mulig det. En eller annen dag. Men det finnes ingen indisier som tyder på
+at utgivere vil bli like komplette som biblioteker. Hvis Barnes & Noble
+tilbød utlån av bøker fra sine lager til en lavere pris, ville det eliminere
+behovet for biblioteker? Kun hvis du mener at den eneste rollen et
+bibliotek skal tjene er den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">markedet</span>»</span> etterspør. Men hvis du
+mener rollen til et bibliotek er større en dette—hvis du mener dets
+rolle er å arkivere kultur, uavhengig av om det er en etterspørsel etter en
+bestemt bit av den kulturen eller ikke—da kan vi ikke basere oss på at
+det kommersielle markedet vil gjøre biblioteksjobben for oss.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5590104"></a><p>
+Jeg er blant de første til å være enig i at det skal gjøre så mye som det
+kan: Vi bør basere oss på markedet så mye som mulig for å spre og muliggjøre
+kultur. Mitt budskap er absolutt ikke imot markedet. Men der vi ser at
+markedet ikek gjør jobben, da bør vi tillate krefter utenfor markedet
+friheten til å fylle hullene. En forsker beregnet for amerikansk kultur at
+94 prosent av filmer, bøker og musikk produsert mellom 1923 og 1946 er ikke
+kommersielt tilgjengelig. Uansett hvor mye du elsker markedet, så er 6
+prosent en svikt hvis tilgang er et måleparameter.<sup>[<a name="idp5592320" href="#ftn.idp5592320" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
+
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>I januar 1999</strong></span> anla vi sak på vegne av
+Eric Eldred ved den føderale distriktsretten i Washington, D.C., og ba
+retten om å erklære at Sonny Bono utvidelse av opphavsrettsvernetid-loven
+var i strid med grunnloven. De to sentrale påstandene vi kom med var (1) at
+å utvide eksisterende vernetid var i strid med grunnlovens krav om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et
+begrenset tidsrom</span>»</span>, og (2) at å utvide vernetiden med tjue nye år var
+i strid med første grunnlovstillegg.
</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
least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
court. That dissent gave our claims life.
</p><p>
-Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
-be for "limited Times" only. His argument was as elegant as it was simple:
-If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no "stopping point" to
-Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. The power to extend existing
-terms means Congress is not required to grant terms that are "limited."
-Thus, Judge Sentelle argued, the court had to interpret the term "limited
-Times" 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 "en banc" to hear the case.
-</p><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
-D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
-liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
-bounds.
-</p><p>
-It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
-Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
-hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
-practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
-court has yet reviewed the statute.
-</p><p>
-But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
-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.
+Dommer David Sentelle sa at CTEA kun brøt med krav om at opphavsrett skal
+gis for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et begrenset tidsrom</span>»</span>. Hans argument var like elegant
+som det var enkelt. Hvis kongressen kan utvide eksisterende vernetid, så
+finnes det ikke noe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">endepunkt</span>»</span> til kongressens myndighet i
+følge opphavsrettsbestemmelsen. Myndigheten til å utvide vernetiden betyr at
+kongressen ikke er nødt til å dele ut vernetider som er
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span>. Dermed argumenterte dommer Sentelle at retten
+måtte tolke begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset tidsrom</span>»</span> for at det skulle ha
+mening. Og dommer Sentelle argumenterte at den beste tolkningen ville være
+å nekte kongressen myndighet til å utvide eksisterende vernetid.
+</p><p>
+Vi spurte hele ankedomstolen for D.C. ankekretsen om å ta opp saken. Saker
+tas normalt opp i et panel med tre deltagere, med unntak av viktige saker
+eller saker som tar opp tema som er spesifikk for kretsen som helhet, der
+domstolen vil samles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> for å ta opp saken.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5598992"></a><p>
+
+Ankedomstolen avviste vår anmodning om å ta opp saken en banc. Denne gangen
+fikk dommer Sentelle følge av det mest liberale medlemmet av ankekretsen i
+D.C., dommer David Tatel. Både de mest konservative og den mest liberale
+dommerne i ankekretsen i D.C. mente kongressen hadde gått over side grenser.
+</p><p>
+Det var her de fleste forventet at Eldred mot Ashcroft ville dø, for
+høyesterett tar sjelden opp en avgjørelse gjort av en ankedomstol. (Den tar
+opp omtrent hundre saker i året, ut av mer enn fem tusen anker.) Og den
+revurderer praktiskt talt aldri en avgjørelse som opprettholder en regel når
+ingen annen domstol så langt har revurdert regelen.
+</p><p>
+Men i februar 2002 overrasket høyesterett verden ved å innvilge vår
+forespørsel om å ta opp avgjørelsen fra D.C.-kretsen. Argumentasjonen ble
+fastsat til oktober 2002. Sommeren ble tilbrakt med å skrive innlegg og
+forberede oss for argumentasjonen.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Det er mer</strong></span> enn et år senere når jeg
+skriver disse ordene. Det er fortsatt utrolig vanskelig. Hvis du vet noe
+om denne historien, så vet du at vi tapte anken. Og hvis du vet noe mer enn
+bare litt, så tror du antagelig at det var ingen måte denne saken kunne
+blitt vunnet. Etter vårt nederlag fikk jeg jeg bokstavlig talt tusenvis av
+meldinger fra støttespillere og folk som ville ønske meg lykke til, som
+takket meg for min innsats på vegne av denne noble men fortapte sak. Og
+ingen fra denne haugen var viktigere for meg enn eposten fra min klient,
+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
2744550"></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
2744573"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744579"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744585"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5603904"></a><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Feilen</strong></span> ble gjort tidlig, skjønt det ble
+først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak hadde hatt 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
p5605680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5606088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5606480"></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 "viktig" for Høyesterett. Det måtte synes som om
-dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur, ellers ville de
-aldri stemt mot "de mektigste mediaselskapene i verden".
+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 "right" as
-in "true," I thought, but it is "wrong" as in "it just shouldn't be that
-way." As I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of
-our Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
+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
+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
the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
put in the Constitution.
</p><p>
-In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
-caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
-reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
-this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
-that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
+Jeg tenkte uansett at domstolen allerede må se faren og skaden forårsaket av
+dette type lov. Hvorfor skulle de ellers gå med på å ta opp saken? Det var
+ingen grunn til å ta opp saken i høyesterett hvis de ikke var overbevist om
+at dette lovverket var skadelig. Dermed var det etter mitt syn ikke
+nødvendig å overbevise den om at denne loven var ille. Vi trengte å vise
+den hvorfor den var i strid med grunnloven.
</p><p>
There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
widest range of credible critics—credible not because they were rich
and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5612776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5613496"></a><p>
The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
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, "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?" The answer, as the editorial
-documented, was the power of money. Schlafly enumerated Disney's
+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
+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="id2744692"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2744698"></a>
+Schlafly argued.
</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
the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms. That strong
conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5615688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5616112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5616520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5616944"></a><p>
+
In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
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="id2744727"></a>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5618944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5619384"></a><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.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5620256"></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
2744752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744758"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744765"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744771"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744777"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5621120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5621536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5621952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5622368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5622784"></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
Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
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 "rent-seeking"—the
-fancy term economists use to describe special-interest legislation gone
-wild.
-</p><p>
+create. Such extensions were nothing more than
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>—the fancy term economists use to describe
+special-interest legislation gone wild.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5624208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5624600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5625016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5625432"></a><p>
+
The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
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="id2744788"></a>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5626904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5627304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5627880"></a><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
companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
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="id2744844"></a>
+the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.
</p><p>
The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
-well. Significantly, however, none of these "friends" included historians or
-economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were written
-exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright holders.
+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.
</p><p>
The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
law. The congressmen were not surprising either—they were defending
induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
who did what with content they wanted to control.
-</p><p>
-Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
-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 "glorify
-drugs or to create pornography."<sup>[<a name="id2744875" href="#ftn.id2744875" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That
-was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its "protection"
-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="id2744900" href="#ftn.id2744900" 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="id2744913"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5630120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5631040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5631440"></a><p>
+
+Representanter for Dr. Seuss argumenterte for eksempel med at det var bedre
+at boet etter Dr. Seuss kontrollerte hva som skjedde med verkene til
+Dr. Seuss—bedre enn å la det falle i det fri—på grunn av at hvis
+denne kreativiteten var allemannseie så ville folk bruke dem til å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forherlige narkotika og skape pornografi</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="idp5633056" href="#ftn.idp5633056" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> Dette var også motivet til boet etter Gershwin, som
+forsvarte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttelse</span>»</span> av verkene til George Gershwin. De
+avviste for eksempel å lisensiere ut <em class="citetitle">Progy and Bess</em>
+til enhver som nektet å bruke Afrikans-amerikanere i rollelista.<sup>[<a name="idp5634800" href="#ftn.idp5634800" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> Det er deres syn på hovrdan denne delen av
+amerikansk kultur bør kontrolleres, og de ønsket hjelp fra denne lovel til å
+effektuere denne kontrollen.
</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, "Give us twenty years to control the speech about these
-icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone else."
-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.
+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
+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.
</p><p>
We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
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.
+favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.
</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Mellom februar</strong></span> og kotober gjorde jeg lite
+ut over å forberede meg for denne saken. Som jeg nevnte tidligere, satte
+jeg strategien tidlig.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5638576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5639000"></a><p>
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
-"the Conservatives." The other we called "the Rest." 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
2744963"></a><p>
+<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
p5640744"></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
2744998"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5643728"></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>
-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
-simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
-for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
-confident he would recognize limits here.
-</p><p>
-This analysis of "the Rest" 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' most important
-jurisprudential innovation—the argument that Judge Sentelle had relied
-upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must be interpreted so
-that its enumerated powers have limits.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5644672"></a><p>
+Den eneste stemmen vi kunne være trygg på hvar den til dommer Stevens.
+Historien viser at dommer Stevens er en av de største dommerne i denne
+domstolen. Han stemmer har vært konsistent selektiv, hvilket bare betyr at
+ikke noen enkel ideologi forklarer hvordan vil stille seg. Men han hadde
+konsistent argumentert for begresninger i sammenheng med immaterielle eiedom
+generelt. Vi var rimelig sikre på at han ville kjenne igjen begresningene
+her.
+</p><p>
+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'
+most important jurisprudential innovation—the argument that Judge
+Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
+be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
</p><p>
This then was the core of our strategy—a strategy for which I am
<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 "limited." Our aim would be to get the
-Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
+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.
-</p><p>
-There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
-agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in and in 1909. And of
-course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
-regularly—eleven times in forty years.
-</p><p>
-
-But this "consistency" 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
+<span class="strong"><strong>Argumentet</strong></span> på regjerningens side kokte
+ned til dette: Kongressen har gjort det før, og bør få lov til å gjøre det
+igjen. Regjeringen hevdet at helt fra starten har kongressen utvidet
+vernetiden til eksisterende opphavsrett. Derfor, argumenterte regjeringen,
+burde ikke retten nå si at praksisen var i strid med grunnloven.
+</p><p>
+Det var noe sant i regjeringens påstand, men ikke mye. Vi var helt klart
+enig i at kongressen hadde utvidet verntiden i 1831 og i 1909. Og i 1962,
+selvfølgelig, begynte kongressen regelmessig å utvide eksisterende
+vernetid—elleve ganger på førti år.
+</p><p>
+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
terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
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 "mooted" by lawyers who had volunteered to help in
-the case. Such "moots" 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
-power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
-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="id2745110"></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="id2745123"></a>
-</p><p>
-"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."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2745132"></a><p>
-
+couldn't intervene here.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Muntlig argumentasjon</strong></span> var fastsatt til
+første uke i oktober. Jeg ankom D.C. to uker før dette. I løpet av disse
+to ukene ble jeg gang på gang <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opponert</span>»</span> av advokater som hadde
+meldt seg frivillig til å hjelpe til i saken. Slike
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opponeringsøkter</span>»</span> er i grunnen øvelsesrunder hvor de som vil
+være dommere fyrer av spørsmål mot de som vil vinne.
+</p><p>
+Jeg var overbevist om at for å vinne, måtte jeg holde retten fokusert på et
+enkelt poeng: hvis denne utvidelsen ble akseptert så ville det ikke være
+noen grenser for myndigheten til å vedta vernetid. Å være enig med
+regjeringen ville bety at vernetiden effektivt sett ville være uten
+begrensing. Å være enig med oss ville gi kongressen en klar linje å følge:
+Ikke utvid den eksisterende vernetiden. Opponeringsrundene var effektiv
+trening. Jeg fant måter å bringe hvert eneste spørsmål tilbake til den
+sentrale idéen.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5654368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5654776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5655168"></a><p>
+En opponeringsrunde var foran advokatene hos Jones Day. Don Ayer var
+skeptikeren. Han hadde tjenestegjort i justisdepartementet under Reagen med
+riksadvokat Charles Fried. Han hadde presentert mange saker foran
+høyesterett. Og i sin oppsummering av opponeringsrunden kom han med sin
+bekymring:
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg er bare redd for at med mindre de virkelig ser skaden, så vil de
+ikke være villige til å bryte denne praksisen som regjeringen sier har vært
+konsistent praksis for to hundre år. Du må få dem til å se skaden—med
+ettertrykk få dem til å se skaden. Hvis de ikke ser den, så har vi ingen
+sjanse til å vinne.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5656704"></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>Natten før</strong></span> argumentasjonen begynte en kø
+av folk å dukke opp foran høyesterett. Saken hadde fått oppmerksomhet fra
+pressen og fri kultur-bevegelsen. Hundrevis sto på rekke for å få en sjanse
+til å se forhandlingen. Flokkevis tilbrakte natten på trappen til
+høyesterett for å sikre seg et sete.
</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>
-Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening. The history
-was bothering her.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5662208"></a><p>
+Dommer O'Connor stoppet meg før det jeg var kommet et minutt inn i
+åpningsforedraget mitt. Historien plaget henne.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
-and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
-of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
-act.
+Dommer O'Connor: Kongressen har utvidet vernetiden så mange ganger etter
+hvert. Hvis du har rett, risikerer vi ikke å forstyrre tidligere utvidelser
+av vernetiden? Jeg mener, dette virker å være en praksis som startet med
+den aller første lovendringen?
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-She was quite willing to concede "that this flies directly in the face of
-what the framers had in mind." But my response again and again was to
-emphasize limits on Congress's power.
+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>
mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
-Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
+Det var to poenger i dette argumentet der jeg burde ha sett hvor retten var
+på vei. Det første var et spørsmål fra dommer Kennedy, som observerte,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
progress in science and the useful arts. I just don't see any empirical
evidence for that.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
-answered,
+Her følger min åpenbare feil. Som en professor som korrigerer en student,
+svarte jeg,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all. Nothing
-in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
-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="id2745259"></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
-place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
-was a swing and a miss.
+Mr. Lessig: Dommer, det er ikke en empirisk påstand i det hele
+tatt. Ingenting i påstanden om vår opphavsrettsbestemmelse baserer seg på
+den empiriske antagelsen om å hindre fremgang. Vårt eneste argument er at
+dette er en strukturell begrensning som er nødvendig for å sikre at det som
+ellers ville være en evigvarende vernetid ikke blir tillatt i
+opphavsrettsloven.
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp5668016"></a><p>
+Det var et riktig svar, men det var ikke det riktige svaret. Det riktige
+svaret var i stedet at det var åpenbar og dyptgripende skade. En rekke
+orienteringer hadde blitt skrevet om den. Han ønsket å høre det. Og det
+var her rådet fra Don Ayer burde ha hatt betydning. Dette var en lett
+pasning, og mitt svar bommet fullstendig.
</p><p>
The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
</p><p>
-It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
-To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
+Det var klart ett sekund inn i hans spørsmål at han overhode ikke hadde
+sympati med oss. For ham var vi en gjeng med anarkister. Han spurte så,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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>
-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,
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp5671560"></a><p>
+Ting gikk bedre for oss når regjerningen presenterte sitt
+åpniningsforedrag. For nå tok retten tak i kjernen i våre påstander. Dommer
+Scalia spurte regjeringsadvokat Olson,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
-would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
-argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
-extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
+Dommer Scalia: Du sier at den funksjonelle ekvivalenten til en ubegrenset
+vernetid ville være i strid [med grunnloven], men det er jo nøyaktig det
+argumentet som fremmes av *petitioners* her, at en begrenset vernetid som er
+utvidbar er den funksjonelle ekvivalenten til en ubegrenset vernetid.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal. Olson's
flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
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>Da jeg dro</strong></span>fra retten den dagen visste jeg
+det var hundrevis av ting jeg skulle ønske jeg hadde gjort på nytt. Det var
+hundrevis av spørsmål jeg skulle ønske jeg hadde svart annerledes. Men en
+måte å tenke på denne saken gjorde jeg optimistisk.
</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.
-</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
-had been wrong in my reasoning.
+<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>
-My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
-in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
-naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
+Noen få sekunder senere ankom domsavsigelsen via epost. Jeg tok
+telefonrøret av krogen, la ut en kunngjøring på bloggen vår, og satte meg så
+ned for å se hvor jeg hadde tatt feil i min argumentasjon.
</p><p>
-I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
-principle in this case from the principle in
-<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.
+Min <span class="emphasis"><em>argumentasjon</em></span>. Her var et tilfelle der alle alle
+pengene i verden var satset mot <span class="emphasis"><em>argumentasjon</em></span>. Og her
+satt den siste naive juss-professor og trålet igjennom sidene på jakt etter
+argumentasjon.
</p><p>
+Først trålet jeg domsavsigelsen for å finne hvordan domstolen ville skille
+prinsippet i denne saken fra prinsippet i <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. Jeg
+fant ikke argumentet noe sted. Saken var ikke en gang sitert. Argumentet
+som var kjerneargumenet i vår sak var ikke en gang tilstede i domstolens
+domsavsigelse.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5680104"></a><p>
with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
Congress's power not limited here.
</p><p>
-Her opinion was perfectly reasonable—for her, and for Justice
-Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
-much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
-explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
-</p><p>
-But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
-reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
-powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
-Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
-simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
-inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together. There was
-therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
-case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
-context it would not.
+Hennes mening var helt rimelig—for henne og for dommer Souter. Ingen
+av dem tror på <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. Det ville være for mye å
+forvente at de skulle skrive en domsavsigelse som annerkjente, langt mindre
+forklarte, den doktrinen som de hadde jobbet så hardt for å bekjempe.
+</p><p>
+Men etter hvert som jeg innså hva som hadde skjedd, så kunne jeg ikke helt
+tro det jeg leste. Jeg hadde sagt at det ikke var mulig for domstolen å
+*reconcile* begrenset myndighet for handels-bestemmelsen og ubegrenset
+myndighet for fremgangs-bestemmelsen. Det hadde aldri slått meg at de kunne
+*reconcile* de to ved å ganske enkelt <span class="emphasis"><em>ikke bry seg om
+argumentet</em></span>. Det var ingen manglende konsistens ganske enkelt
+fordi de lot være å omtale de to sammen. Det var dermed ikke noe prinsipp
+som fulgte fra <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>-saken: I den sammenhengen var
+kongressens myndighet begrenset, men i denne sammenhengen var den ikke
+begrenset.
</p><p>
Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
would respect? By what right did they—the silent five—get to
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
2745450"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5683888"></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
2745469"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5685056"></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 "limited," and the existing term was so
-long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was unconstitutional.
+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>
These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
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 "Conservatives." It would have been one
-thing for them to have explained why the principle of
+<span class="strong"><strong>Tap gir depresjon</strong></span>. De sier det er et
+sunnhetstegn når depresjon må vike for sinne. Mitt sinne kom raskt, men det
+kurerte ikke depresjonen. Sinnet gikk i to retninger.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5689088"></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 "originalism"—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 "originalist" rulings. Where was
-their "originalism" now?
+the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
+<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?
</p><p>
Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
consistent with their own principles.
</p><p>
-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
2745568"></a><p>
+Mitt sinne mot de konservative ga raskt etter for sinnet mot meg selv. For
+jeg hadde latt en holdning til loven som jeg likte forstyrre en holdning til
+loven slik den er.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5693104"></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
2745610"></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="id2745622"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p5695696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5696088"></a><p>
+Ville det gått annerledes hvis jeg hadde argumentert litt forskjellig?
+Ville det ha gått annerledes hvis Don Ayer hadde argumentert? Eller Charles
+Fried? Eller Kathleen Sullivan?
</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
-a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
-we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
+Mine venner samlet seg rundt meg for å insistere på at det ville det ikke.
+Domstolen var ikke klar, insisterte mine venner. Det var et tap bestemt av
+skjebnen. Det ville kreve mye mer for å vise samfunnet vårt hvorfor
+grunnlovsforsamlingen hadde rett. Og når vi gjør det, så vil vi væræ i
+stand til å vise det til domstolen.
</p><p>
Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
persuaded.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5698456"></a><p>
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. "The Court is not ready," Peter Jaszi said; this issue should
-not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2745653"></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,
+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.
+</p><p>
+Etter argumentasjonen og etter avgjørelsen sa Peter til meg, og offentlig,
+at han tok feil. Men hvis domstolen faktisk ikke kunne bli overbevist, så
+er det igjen alt bevis som trengs for å vite at her hadde Peter nok en gang
+rett. Enten var ikke jeg klar til å argumentere for denne saken på en måte
+som ville bidra positivt, eller så var de ikke klare for å ta opp denne
+saken på en måte som ville bidra positivt. Uansett var avgjørelsen om å
+fremme denne saken feil—en avgjørelse jeg hadde tatt fire år
+tidligere.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Mens reaksjonen</strong></span>på Sonny Bono-loven selv
+var nesten enstemming negativ, så var reaksjonen på domstolens avgjørelse
+blandet. Ikke en eneste, i hvert fall i pressen, forsøkte å si at det var
+en god idé å utvide vernetiden i opphavsretten. Vi hadde vunnet kampen om
+idéen. Avgjørelsen fikk støtte fra aviser som hadde vært skeptisk til
+domstolens aktivisme i andre saker. Å holde hendene unna var en god ting,
+selv om den lot en dum lov bli stående. Men der avgjørelsen ble angrepet så
+ble den angrepet på grunn av at den lot en dum og skadelig bli stående.
+<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> skrev i sin leder,
</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
-perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
-not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
-output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
-creative ferment.
+Effekten er at beslutningen i Høyesterett gjør det sannsynlig at vi ser
+starten på slutten til allemannseie, og fødselen til evig opphavsrett.
+Allemannseie har vært et storslått eksperiment, som ikke bør få lov til å
+dø. Evnen til å trekke uten begresning på hele den kreative produksjonen
+til menneskeheten er en av grunnene til at vi lever i en tid med så
+fruktbart kreativt vekstmiljø.
</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. The "powerful and
-wealthy" line is a bit unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like
-that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2745537"></a>
-</p><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 "grand experiment" we call
-the "public domain" is over? When I can make light of it, I think, "Honey, I
-shrunk the Constitution." 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><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>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="id2745750"></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: "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." And so, having failed in
-the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I turned to an argument
-of politics.
-</p><p>
-
-<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
-proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
-copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
-fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
-copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
-</p><p>
-We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name. Eric
-Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
-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 "Public Domain Enhancement Act" or the "Copyright Term Deregulation
-Act." 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="id2745806"></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
-copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
-government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
-creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
-blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
-there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
-issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
-</p><p>
-Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
-requirement. For one of the hardest things about the current system for
-people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
-for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
-marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
-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="id2745850"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2745857"></a><p>
-
-As I described in chapter 10, 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="id2745868" href="#ftn.id2745868" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The Europeans are said to view copyright as a "natural right."
-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
-respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
-creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
-</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 "Walt Disney
-creativity" is destroyed when there is no simple way to know what's
-protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2745917"></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
-abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
-stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
-Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
-<em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
-loss of widows' only income.
-</p><p>
-These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
-formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
-always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
-copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
-the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
-of registration.
-</p><p>
-Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
-nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
-hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
-starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
-imposed upon creators.
-</p><p>
-
-In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
-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 "naturally," 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>
-This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
-argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
-being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
-the special problems that creative property presents. The law of
-formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
-that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
-</p><p>
-No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
-you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
-effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
-you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license. In both
-of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
-registration—both because it makes the markets more efficient and
-because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
-system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
-property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
-deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
-easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
-stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
-burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
-</p><p>
-It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
-copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
-makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
-property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
-places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
-owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
-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="id2745990"></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 "get."
-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, "short," 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.
-</p><p>
-But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
-know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
-burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
-Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
-to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
-in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
-formalities</em></span>.
-</p><p>
-The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
-worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
-term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
-permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
-extended copyright term.
-</p><p>
-If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
-term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
-monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
-where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
-on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
-</p><p>
-Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
-registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende? Er ikke
-ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
-registrering?
-</p><p>
-
-It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
-completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
-because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
-registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
-the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
-any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
-solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
-Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
-registration. The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
-fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
-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="id2746112"></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>
-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, "vi er nære". Det oppstod en
-generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje her.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2746144"></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
-the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
-congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
-embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
-about what this debate is really about.
-</p><p>
-
-The MPAA argued first that Congress had "firmly rejected the central concept
-in the proposed bill"—that copyrights be renewed. That was true, but
-irrelevant, as Congress's "firm rejection" 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 argued that Congress had determined
-that extending a copyright term would encourage restoration work. Maybe in
-the case of the small percentage of 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 "enormous" 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 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is
-that? If it is in the public domain, then the film is a valid derivative
-use.
-</p><p>
-Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
-this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
-copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
-they are free to give away their copyright or not—a controversial
-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.
-</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
-til å reagere. Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
-med sunn fornuft. Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
-sunne fornuften?
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
-owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
-law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
-to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
-wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
-Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
-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>
-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 "Dark Content" that fills archives around the
-world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should ask one
-simple question:
-</p><p>
-Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
-</p><p>
-With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
-effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
-<span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
-effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
-another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
-will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
-there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
-<span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
-</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 "property" 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>
-
-It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
-to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
-tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
-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="id2746318"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2746324"></a><p>
-What is hard to understand is why the public takes this view. It is as if
-the law made airplanes trespassers. The MPAA stands with the Causbys and
-demands that their remote and useless property rights be respected, so that
-these remote and forgotten copyright holders might block the progress of
-others.
-</p><p>
-All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
-"property" 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 "permission society." 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><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743418" href="#id2743418" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
-
-
-There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
-it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
-noncommercial pornographers—people who were distributing porn but were
-not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution. Such a
-class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
-distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
-special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
-Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
-noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
-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 name="ftn.id2743451" href="#id2743451" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
-
-
-The full text is: "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," 144
-Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743686" href="#id2743686" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
+De beste responsene dukket opp i tegneseriene. Det var en haug veldig
+morsome tegninger—av Mikke i fengsel og dets like. Det beste fra mitt
+ståsted i saken, var fra Ruben Bolling, og er gjengitt på den neste siden
+(<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie">Figur 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie”</a>). Tekstlinjen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mektig og rik</span>»</span> er
+litt urettferdig. Men slaget i ansiktet føltes akkurat slik ut.<a class="indexterm" name="idp5704888"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie"></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp5706304"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+Bildet som for alltid står inne i hodet mitt er det som ble utløst av et
+sitat fra <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>. At <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det store
+eksperimentet</span>»</span> vi kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allemannseie</span>»</span> er over? Når
+jeg kan ta lett på det, så tenker jeg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kjære, jeg krympet
+grunnloven</span>»</span>. Men jeg klarer sjelden å ta lett på det. Vi hadde i
+grunnloven vår en forpliktelse til å frigjøre kultur. I den saken som jeg
+hadde ansvar for, ga høyesterett effektivt avkall på den forpliktelsen. En
+bedre advokat ville fått dem til å annerledes på det.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5465664" href="#idp5465664" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5465856"></a> Det er en parallell her til
+pornografi som er litt vanskelig å beskrive men som er veldig sterk. Et
+fenomen som internettet skapte var en verden av ikke-kommersiell
+pornografi—folk som distribuerte porno men som ikke tjente penger
+direkte eller indirekte fra denne distribusjonen. Noe slikt eksisterte ikke
+før internettet dukket opp, på grunn av at kostnaden med å distribuere porno
+var så høy. Likevel fikk denne nye klassen av distributører spesiell
+oppmerksomhet fra høyesterett, da retten slo ned på Anstendig
+Kommunikasjons-loven fra 1996. Det var delvis på grunn av byrden på
+ikke-kommersielle talere at loven ble funnet å gå ut over kongressens
+myndighet. Det samme poenget kan sies å gjelde for ikke-kommersielle
+utgivere etter at internettet dukket opp. Alle Eric Eldred-ene i verden før
+internettet var ekstremt få. Likevel skulle en tro at det er minst like
+viktig å beskytte alle Eldred-ene i verden som det er å beskytte
+ikkekommersielle pornografer.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5480136" href="#idp5480136" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5480504"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5481056"></a> Hele teksten er: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] ønsket at vernetiden i
+opphavsretten skulle vare evig. Jeg er informert av ansatte at en slik
+endring ville være i strid med grunnloven. Jeg inviterer dere alle til å
+jobbe sammen med meg for å styrke våre opphavsrettslover på alle måter som
+er tilgjengelig for oss. Som dere vet, er det også et forslag fra Jack
+Valenti om en vernetid som varer evig minus en dag. Kanskje komiteen kan se
+på i neste periode.</span>»</span> 144 Kongr. Ref. H9946, 9951-2 (7. oktober 1998).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5517576" href="#idp5517576" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
-Associated Press, "Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey Mouse
-Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,"
-<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743700" href="#id2743700" 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.idp5512296" href="#idp5512296" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
-Se Nick Brown, "Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information Age,"
-tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#49</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743716" href="#id2743716" 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.idp5519744" href="#idp5519744" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
-Alan K. Ota, "Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,"
-<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 name="ftn.id2743806" href="#id2743806" 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.idp5530632" href="#idp5530632" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
-<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
+<em class="citetitle">United States</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743833" href="#id2743833" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5532400" href="#idp5532400" 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 name="ftn.id2743853" href="#id2743853" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">United States</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>,
+529 U.S. 598 (2000).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5533792" href="#idp5533792" 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 "limited times" notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743933" href="#id2743933" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
+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.idp5542376" href="#idp5542376" 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 name="ftn.id2743992" href="#id2743992" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
+Orientering fra Nashvillesangforfatterforening,
+<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
+186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5548080" href="#idp5548080" 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 name="ftn.id2744147" href="#id2744147" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+Tallet 2 prosent er en ektrapolering fra en undersøkelse gjort av
+kongressens forskningstjeneste, med bakgrunn i de estimerte
+fornyelsespennene. Se Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
+
mot <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5562432" href="#idp5562432" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
-See David G. Savage, "High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,"
-<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David Streitfeld,
-"Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today
-on Striking Down Copyright Extension," <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
-Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2744201" href="#id2744201" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
+Se 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. oktober 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. oktober 2002.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5519856" href="#idp5519856" 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 name="ftn.id2744431" href="#id2744431" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5592320" href="#idp5592320" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
-Jason Schultz, "The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory," 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 name="ftn.id2744875" href="#id2744875" 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.idp5633056" href="#idp5633056" 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 name="ftn.id2744900" href="#id2744900" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
+Orientering fra 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.idp5634800" href="#idp5634800" 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. mars
+1998, B7.
+</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>Dagen</strong></span> <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> ble
+avgjort, ville skjebnen det at jeg skulle reise til Washington, D.C. (Dagen
+da en forespørsel ny høring for <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> ble
+avslått—som betød at saken endelig var avsluttet—skjebnen gjorde
+at jeg holdt en tale til teknologer ved Disney World.) Dette var en
+spesielt lang flytur til byen jeg setter minst pris på. Kjøreturen inn til
+byen fra Dulles flyplass var forsinket på grunn av trafikken, sa jeg åpnet
+opp datamaskinen og skrev en kronikk.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5710904"></a><p>
+Det var en botsøvelse. Gjennom hele flyturen fra San Francisco til
+Washington hadde jeg i mitt indre øre hørt om og om igjen det samme rådet
+fra Don Ayer: Du må få dem til å forstå hvorfor det er viktig. Og innimellom
+dette rådet var spørsmålet fra dommer Kennedy: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I alle disse årene som
+loven har hemmet fremgang i vitenskap og nyttige kunstarter, så ser jeg
+intet empirisk bevis for dette.</span>»</span> Og dermed, etter å ha feilet i å
+argumentere med konstituelle prinsipper, forsøkte jeg til slutt meg med å
+argumentere politisk.
+</p><p>
+
+<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em> publiserte stykket. I det foreslo jeg
+en enkel fiks: Femti år etter at et verk har blitt publisert, bør
+opphavsrettseieren være nødt til å registrere verket og betale en liten
+avgift. Hvis han betalte avgiften fikk han fordelene av hele vernetiden for
+opphavstiden. Hvis han ikke gjorde det, falt verket i det fri.
+</p><p>
+Vi kalte dette Eldred-loven, men det var kun for å gi det et navn. Eric
+Eldred var snill nok til å la sitt navn brukes nok en gang, men han sa tidig
+at den ikke ville bli vedtatt med mindre den fikk et annet navn.
+</p><p>
+Eller to andre navn. For avhengig av synsvinkel, så er dette enten
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Forbedring av allemannseie-loven</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Avregulering av
+opphavsrettsvernetids-loven</span>»</span>. Uansett er essensen i idéen klar og
+tydelig: Fjern opphavsretten der den ikke gjør noe annet enn å blokkere for
+tilgang og spredning av kunnskap. La den eksistere så lenge som kongressen
+tillater det for de verk der verdien er minst en dollar. For alt annet,
+slipp innholdet fri.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5716736"></a><p>
+Reaksjonen på denne idéen var utrolig sterk. Steve Forbes gikk god for den
+i en leder, og jeg mottok et skred av epost og brev med støtte. Når du
+fokuserer temaet på tapt kreativitet, så ser folk at opphavsrettssystemet
+ikke gir mening. En god republikaner kunne si at her kommer ganske enkelt
+myndigentsregulering i veien for nyskapning og kreativitet. Og en god
+demokrat kunne si at her blokkerer myndighetene uten god grunn tilgang og
+spredning av kunnskap. Det er faktisk ingen reell forskjell mellom
+demokrater og republikanere rundt dette temaet. Enhver kan gjenkjenne de
+idiotiske skadene som dagens ordning gir.
+</p><p>
+Faktisk ser mange de åpenbare fordelene med registreringskravet. For en av
+de vanskeligste tingene med dagens system for folk som ønsker å lisensiere
+innhold er at det ikke er noen åpenbar plass å se etter gjeldende
+opphavsrettseiere. Siden registrering ikke er påkrevd, så er det ofte
+blokkerende vanskelig å spore opp opphavsrettseiere for å spørre om
+tillatelse til å bruke eller lisensiere deres verk. Dette systemet ville
+redusere disse kostnadene ved å etablere i hvert fall et register hvor
+opphavsrettseierene kan identifiseres.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5719480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5719904"></a><p>
+
+Som jeg beskrev i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a> ble formaliteter fjernet fra opphavsrettsloven i
+1976, da kongressen fulgte etter europeerne i å avskaffe alle formelle krav
+før opphavsretten ble innvilget.<sup>[<a name="idp5721304" href="#ftn.idp5721304" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup>
+Europeerne sies å anse opphavsrett som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturlig
+rettighet</span>»</span>. Naturlige rettigheter trenger ingen formaliterer for å
+eksistere. Tradisjoner lik den anglo-amerikanske som har krevd at
+opphavsrettseiere må følge visse formaliteter hvis deres rettigheter skal
+bli beskyttet, mente europeerne at ikke respekterte forfatterens verdighet
+skikkelig. Mine skaper-rettigheter stammer fra min kreativitet, ikke noe
+som deles ut av myndighetene.
+</p><p>
+Det er flott retorikk, og det høres vidunderlig romatisk ut. Men det er
+absurd opphavsrettspolitikk. Det er absurd spesielt for forfattere, fordi
+en verden uten formaliterer skader den som skaper. Muligheten til å spre
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney-kreativtet</span>»</span> er fjernet når det ikke er noen enkel
+måte å vite hva som er beskyttet og hva som ikke er det.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5726328"></a><p>
+Kampen mot formaliteter oppnådde sin første virkelige seier i Berlig i
+1908. Internasjonale opphavsrettsadvokater fikk på plass et tillegg i
+Bern-konvensjonen i 1909 som krevde opphavsrettslig verneperiode som rakk
+hele livet pluss femti år, i tillegg til å avskaffe
+opphavsrettsformaliteter. Formalitetene var hatet på grunn av historiene om
+utilsiktet tap ble mer og mer vanlige. Det var som om en karakter fra
+Charles Dickets drev alle opphavsrettskontorene, og å glemme å sette prikken
+over en <em class="citetitle">i</em> eller glemme å streke igjennom en
+<em class="citetitle">t</em> førte til at en enke mistet sin eneste inntekt.
+</p><p>
+Disse klagene var reelle og fornuftige. Og hvor strengt formalitetene ble
+håndhevd, spesielt i USA, var absurd. Loven bør alltid ha måter å tilgi
+uskyldige feil. Det er ingen grunn til at ikke også åndsverksloven skulle
+kunne det. I stedet for å droppen formaliteter helt, så burde responsen i
+Berlin vært å omfavne et mer rettverdig registreringssystem.
+</p><p>
+Selv det ville dog fått motstand, på grunn av at registrering fortsatt var
+kostbart i det nittende og tjuende århundret. Det var også en plage.
+Avviklingen av formaliteter ga ikke bare lovnad om å redde sultende enker,
+men også å redusere en unødvendig regulatorisk belastning som var påtvunget
+skapere.
+</p><p>
+
+I tillegg til de praktiske klagene fra forfatterne i 1908, så var det også
+moralske innsigelser. Det var ingen grunn til at kreative
+eiendomsrettigheter skulle være en annenrangs type eiendom. Hvis en snekker
+lager et bord, så er ikke hans rettigheter over dette bordet avhengig av av
+han sender inn et skjema til myndighetene. Han har en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturgitt</span>»</span> eiendomsrett til bordet og kan hevde denne retten
+mot enhver som forsøker å stjele bordet, uansett om han har informert
+myndighetene om sitt eierskap til bordet.
+</p><p>
+Dette argumentet er riktig, men dets implikasjoner er misvisende. For
+argumenter i favør av formaliteter er ikke avhengig av at kreative eiendom
+er annerangs eiendom. Argumentet i favør av formaliteter kretser rundt de
+spesielle problemene som kreativ eiendom gir oss. Loven om formaliteter er
+et resultat av de spesielle fysiske egenskapene til kreativ eiendom, for a
+sikre at den kan spres effektivt og rettferdig.
+</p><p>
+For eksempel er det ingen som mener at landområder er annenklasses eiendom
+kun fordi du må tinglyse et skjøte hvis ditt salg av land skal ta effekt.
+Og få mener at en bil er annenklasses eiendom bare på grunn av at du må
+registrere bilen hos biltilsynet og merke den med et bilskilt. I begge
+disse tilfellene ser alle at det er viktige grunner til å kreve
+registrering—både på grunn av at det gjør markedet mer effektivt, og
+på grunn av at det bedre sikrer rettighetene til eieren. Uten et
+registreringssystem for landområder måtte landeiere hele tiden vokte sin
+eiendom. Met registrering kan de ganske enkelt vise politiet et skjøte.
+Uten et registreringssystem for biler ville biltyveri være mye enklere. Med
+et registreringssystem blir det mye vanskeligere for tyven å få solgt den
+stjålne bilen. En liten byrde blir lagt på eiendomseieren, men disse
+byrdene gir et generelt settq mye bedre system for å beskytte eiendom.
+</p><p>
+Det er lignende spesielle fysiske egenskaper som gjør formaliteter viktig i
+opphavsrettslovgiving. I motsetning til en snekkers bord, er det ingenting
+i naturen som gjør det relativt åpenbart hvem som kan eie en bestemt bit av
+kreativ eiendom. Et opptak av Lyle Lovetts siste album kan eksistere en
+milliard steder uten at noe nødvendigvis peker tilbake til en bestemt eier.
+Og på samme måte som en bil, er det ingen måte å være trygg ved kjøp og salg
+av kreativ eiendom med mindre det finnes en enkel måte å bekrefte hvem som
+er forfatteren og hvilke rettigheter han har. Enkle transaksjoner blir
+umulige i en verden uten formaliteter. Kompliserte, dyre,
+<span class="emphasis"><em>advokat</em></span>-transaksjoner trer inn i stedet. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5733064"></a>
+</p><p>
+Dette var forståelsen av problemet med Sonny Bono-loven som vi forsøkte å
+demonstrere for retten. Dette var den delen som den ikke
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok</span>»</span>. Fordi vi lever i et system uten formaliteter, så er det
+ikke noen enkel måte å bygge på eller bruke kulturen fra vår fortid. Hvis
+vernetiden i opphavsretten var, slik dommer Story sa den ville være,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kort</span>»</span>, da ville ikke dette bety stort. I fjorten år, i følge
+systemet til de som skrev grunnloven, ville et verk kunne antas å være
+kontrollert. Etter fjorten år kunne en anta at det ikke var kontrollert.
+</p><p>
+Men nå når opphavsretten kan vare omtrent et århundre, så er den manglende
+evnen til å vite hva som er beskyttet og hva som ikke er beskyttet blitt en
+stor og åpenbar byrde på den kreative prosessen. Hvis den eneste måten et
+bibliotek kan legge frem en internet-utstilling om New Deal er ved å hyre
+inn en advokat til å klarere rettighetene til hvert eneste bilde og hver
+eneste lydinnspilling, så belaster opphavsrettssystemet kreativiteten på en
+måte som aldri før er observert, <span class="emphasis"><em>fordi det ikke er noen
+formaliteter</em></span>.
+</p><p>
+Eldred-loven var utformet for å svare på akkurat dette problemet. Hvis det
+er verdt en dollar for deg, så registrer verket ditt og du kan få lengre
+vernetid. Andre vil vite hvordan de skal kontakte deg og dermed hvordan de
+kan få din tillatelse hvis de ønsker å bruke ditt verk. Og du vil få
+fordelen av en utvidet opphavsrettslig vernetid.
+</p><p>
+Hvis det ikke er verdt det for deg å registrere verket for å få fordelene av
+en utvidet vernetid, så bør det heller ikke være verdt det for myndighetene
+å forsvare ditt monopol over det samme verket. Verket bør falle i det fri
+hvor enhver kan kopiere det, eller lage arkiver med det, eller lage en film
+basert på det. Det bør bli fritt tilgjengelig hvis det ikke er verdt en
+dollar for deg.
+</p><p>
+Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
+registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende? Er ikke
+ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
+registrering?
+</p><p>
+Det stemmer. Ekstraarbeidet er forferdelig. Systemet som finnes nå er
+grufult. Jeg er helt enig i at opphavsrettskontoret har gjort en
+forferdelig jobb (uten tvil på grunn av at de har forferdelig dårlig
+finansiering) i å gjøre registrering enkelt og billig. En skikkelig løsning
+på problemet med formaliteter må adressere det egentlige problemet med
+<span class="emphasis"><em>myndigheter</em></span> som befinner seg i kjernen av ethvert
+system med formaliteter. I denne boken legger jeg frem en slik løsning.
+Løsningen gjør i essensen om på opphavsrettskontoret. Forestill deg at
+registrering kun krever ett klikk. Eldred-loven foreslo en enkel,
+ett-klikks registrering, femti år etter at et verk var publisert. Basert på
+historiske data ville dette systemet få opp mot 98 prosent av kommersielle
+verk, kommersielle verk som ikke lenger har et kommersielt liv, til å falle
+i det fri etter femti år. Hva tror du?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5743152"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5744568"></a><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.
+</p><p>
+Men på dette stadiet begynte lobbyister å bryte inn. Jack Valento og MPAAs
+sjefsjurist kom til kongressrepresentantens kontor for å gi MPAAS syn på
+saken. Veiledet av sin advokat, fortalte Valenti meg, informerte Valenti
+kongressrepresentanten om at MPAA ville motsette seg Eldred-loven. Arsakene
+var pinlig tynne. Enda viktigere er det at deres spinkelhet viser noe klart
+om hva denne debatten egentlig handler om.
+</p><p>
+
+MPAAs første argument var at kongressen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bestemt hadde avvist det
+sentrale konseptet i lovforslaget</span>»</span>—at opphavsretter skal
+fornyes. Det er riktig, men irrelevant, etter som kongressen
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bestemte hadde avvist</span>»</span> dette lenge før internettet gjorde
+påfølgende bruk mye mer sannsynlig. Det andre argumentet var at at
+forslaget ville skade fattige opphavsrettseiere—tilsynelatende de som
+ikke har råd til en avgift på en dollar. Det tredje argumentet var at
+kongressen hadde konkludert med at å utvide vernetiden i opphavsretten ville
+oppmuntre til å restaurere verk. Det kan stemme for den lille
+prosentandelen verk vernet av åndsverksloven og som fortsatt er kommersielt
+verdifulle. Men dette er også irrelevant, etter som forslaget ikke ville
+fjerne den utvidede vernetiden med mindre avgiften på en dollar ikke ble
+betalt. Det fjerde argumenet fra MPAA var at forslaget ville påføre
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enorme</span>»</span> kostnader, etter som et registrerings-system ikke er
+gratis. Sant nok, men disse konstnadene er helt klart lavere enn kostnadene
+med å klarere rettigheter for en opphavsrett der eieren er ukjent. Det
+femte argumentet var at de var bekymret over risikoen hvis opphavsretten til
+en historie som lå til grunn for en film skulle falle i det fri. Men hva
+slags risiko er dette? Hvis den er falt i det fri, så er filmen gyldig
+avleded bruk.
+</p><p>
+Til slutt hevdet MPAA at eksisterende lovgiving gjorde det mulig for
+opphavsrettseierer å gjøræ dette hvis de ønsket det. Men hele poenget er at
+det er tusenvis av opphavsrettseiere som ikke engang vet at de har en
+opphavsrett å gi bort. Hvorvidt de står fritt til å gi bort opphavsretten
+eller ikke—uansett en kontroversiell påstand—så med mindre de
+vet opp en opphavsrett så er det lite sannsynlig at de vil gjøre det.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>I begynnelsen</strong></span> av denne boken fortalte jeg
+to historier om hvordan loven reagerte må endringer i teknologien. I den
+ene vant sunn fornuft frem. I den andre ble sunn fornuft forsinket.
+Forskjellen mellom de to historiene var hvor mektig opposisjonen
+var—hvor mektig siden som sloss for å forsvare status quo. I begge
+tilfellene truet ny teknologi gamle interesser. Men i kun en av tilfellene
+hadde disse interessene nok makt til å beskytte seg mot denne nye
+konkurransemessige trusselen.
+</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
+til å reagere. Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
+med sunn fornuft. Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
+sunne fornuften?
+</p><p>
-Dinitia Smith, "Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse Joins
-the Fray," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March 1998, B7.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2745868" href="#id2745868" 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 "the enjoyment and the exercise" of
-rights guaranteed by the Convention "shall not be subject to any formality."
-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
+Når problemet er piratvirksomhet, så er det riktig at loven støtter
+opphavsrettseierne. Den kommersielle piratvirksomheten som jeg har
+beskrevet er galt og skadelig, og loven bør jobbe for å eliminere den. Når
+problemet er p2p-deling, så er det enkelt å forstå hvorfor loven fortsatt
+støtter eierne. Mye av denne delingen er galt, selv om mye er harmløst. Når
+problemet er opphavsrettsvernetiden for Mikke Mus-ene i verden, så er det
+forsatt mulig å forstå hvorfor loven favoriserer Hollywood: De fleste
+kjenner ikke igjen grunner til å begrense vernetiden for opphavsretten. Det
+er dermed forsatt mulig å se god tro hos motstanden.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5755240"></a><p>
+Men når opphavsrettseiere motsetter seg et forslag som Eldred-loven, så er
+det endelig et eksempel som eksponerer den nakne egeninteressen som holder
+denne krigen i gang. Dette lovforslaget ville frigjøre en ekstraordinær
+rekke av innhold som ellers ville forbli ubrukt. Det ville ikke forstyrre
+noen opphavsrettseiers trang til å utøve fortsatt kontroll over sitt
+innhold. Det ville ganske enkelt frigjøre det som Kevin Kelly kaller det
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mørke innhold</span>»</span> som fyller arkivene rundt om i verden. Så når
+krigerne motsetter seg en slik endring, så bør vi stille et enkelt spørsmål:
+</p><p>
+Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
+</p><p>
+Med svært liten innsats kunne krigerne beskytte sitt innhold. Så innsatsen
+for å blokkere noe ala Eldred-loven er ikke egentlig om å beskytte
+<span class="emphasis"><em>deres</em></span> innhold. Innsatsen for å blokkere Eldred-loven
+er en innsats for å sikre at ingenting mer faller i det fri. Det er et nytt
+steg for å sikre at allemannseiet aldri vil konkurrere, at det ikke vil være
+noe bruk av innhold som ikke er kommersielt kontrollert, og at det ikke vil
+være noe kommersiell bruk av innhold som ikke først krever
+<span class="emphasis"><em>deres</em></span> tillatelse.
+</p><p>
+Motstanden mot Eldred-loven avslører hvor ekstrem den andre siden er. Den
+mektigste, sexy og høyt elskede av lobbyorganisasjoner har som mål ikke å
+beskytte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> men å bli kvitt en tradisjon. Deres mål er
+ikke bare å beskytte det som er deres. <span class="emphasis"><em>Deres mål er å sikre at
+alt som finnes er det som er deres.</em></span>
+</p><p>
+
+Det er ikke vanskelig å forstå hvorfor krigerne har dette synet. Det er
+ikke vanskelig å se hvordan det vil gi dem fordeler hvis konkurransen fra
+allemannseiet knyttet til internettet på en eller mannen måte kunne knuses.
+På samme måte som RCA fryktet konkurransen fra FM, frykter de konkurransen
+fra allemannseiet knyttet til en befolkning som nå har mulighet til å skape
+med den og dele sine egne kreasjoner.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5761104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5761496"></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
+eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
+opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
+</p><p>
+Alt dette ser ut til å lett følge fra å ukritisk akseptere
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>-biten av immateriell eiendom. Sunn fornuft støtter
+det, og så lenge den gjør det vil overfallene regne ned over teknologiene på
+internettet. Konsekvensene vil være mer og mer et
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillatelses-samfunn</span>»</span>. Fortiden kan kun kultiveres hvis du kan
+finne eieren og be om tillatelse til å bygge på hans verk. Fremtiden vil bli
+kontrollert av denne døde (og ofte forsvunnede) hånd fra fortiden.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5721304" href="#idp5721304" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5721672"></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 class="chapter" title="Kapittel 6. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 6. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><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.
+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="idxafricamedicationsforhivpatientsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxaidsmedications"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdevelopingcountriesforeignpatentcostsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrugspharmaceutical"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></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
usynlig.
</p><p>
Disse medisinene er dyre. Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
-mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år. I dag koster noen av dem $25
-000 pr. år. Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen 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="id2746404" href="#ftn.id2746404" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år. I dag koster noen
+av dem $25 000 pr. år. Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
+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="idp5772888" href="#ftn.idp5772888" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsonpharmaceuticals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpharmaceuticalpatents"></a><p>
Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
markedspris.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternationallaw2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxparallelimportation"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsouthafricarepublicofpharmaceuticalimportsby"></a><p>
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 "parallellimport" og er generelt tillatt i
-internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den europeiske
-union.<sup>[<a name="id2746482" href="#ftn.id2746482" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+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="idp5782824" href="#ftn.idp5782824" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5784536"></a><p>
Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
-"Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika . . . til å ikke tillate tvungen
-lisensiering eller parallellimport"<sup>[<a name="id2746518" href="#ftn.id2746518" 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
+<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="idp5441968" href="#ftn.idp5441968" 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 distriminere mot en bestemt type patenter—farmasøytiske
+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="id2746547" href="#ftn.id2746547" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="idp5787600" href="#ftn.idp5787600" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5790000"></a><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
til medisiner. Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
</p><p>
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="id2746641" href="#ftn.id2746641" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
-grunn av at "intellektuell eiendom" ville bli krenket at disse medisinene
-ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om viktigheten av
-"intellektuell eiendom" som fikk disse myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere
-mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
-</p><p>
+eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="idp5793928" href="#ftn.idp5793928" 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5798352"></a><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 "ukrenkeligheten" 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>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idxcorporationsinpharmaceuticalindustry"></a><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
en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
overvunnet.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsofdrugpatents"></a><p>
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, "hvordan har det seg at du kan
-selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille koster
-en amerikansker $1500?" Da det ikke finnes et "kjapt svar" på det
-spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering av priser i Amerika.
-Medisinprodusentene unngård 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 "immaterielle rettigheter".
-</p><p>
+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—ukrenkeligheten til en idé som kalles
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5805808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5807552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5808232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5808928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5809616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5810272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5810936"></a><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,
hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det? Hva er argumentet?
markedsprisen. En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
balansert politikk. For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
-</p><p>
-
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5813992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5814712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5815400"></a><p>
Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse. Vi har mistet det
-kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forkjellen mellom sannhet og
+kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
ekstremisme. En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
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. 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
+enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5816216"></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 domunerer denne
+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 "piratvirksomhet" og knuser kreativitetskultur. De forsvarer idéen
-om "kreativt eierskap", mens de endrer ekte skapere til moderne
-leilendinger. De blir fornermet 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 lakt merke til. Mektige lobbyister,
-kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn gir en "perfekt storm" for
-fri kultur.
-</p><p>
-I august 2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual
-Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id2746766" href="#ftn.id2746766" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interresenter hadde WIPO
-bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere "åpne og sammarbeidende prosjekter
-for å skape goder for felleskapet". 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 "åpen kildekode og fri
-programvare". <a class="indexterm" name="id2746942"></a>
-</p><p>
+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="idp5822296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5822720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5824160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5824720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5825112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5825560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5826008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5826600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5827032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5828360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5828776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5829208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></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="idp5831336" href="#ftn.idp5831336" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
+med interessenter 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 kapittel
+<a class="xref" href="#c-afterword" title="Etterord">16</a>.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>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5837336"></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
balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceininternationaldebateonintellectualproperty"></a><p>
Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
-ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2746969" href="#ftn.id2746969" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<sup>[<a name="idp5840088" href="#ftn.idp5840088" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak
-vitenskapet, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
+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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldsummitontheinformationsocietywsis"></a><p>
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
+om WIPO. I februar 2003 leverte jeg et nøkkelforedrag 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
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
-"informasjonssamfunn" 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 ideen
-om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
+<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 "åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape fellesgoder" virker å
-passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
-</p><p>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5846288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5847056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5847792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5849432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
-blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er "åpen kildekode og fri
-programvare". 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
-"proprietær programvare," til sine egne interne behov.
-</p><p>
+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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5852568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5853120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5853512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5853936"></a><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 "fri programvare"—og IBM er helt klart en kommernsiell
-aktør. Dermed er det å støtte "fri programvare" 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="id2746824" href="#ftn.id2746824" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-
-Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte "åpen kildekode og fri
-programvare" ikke er å motsette seg opphasvrett. "Åpen kildekode og fri
-programvare" 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 redistribuerer 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>
-It is therefore understandable that as a proprietary software developer,
-Microsoft would oppose this WIPO meeting, and understandable that it would
-use its lobbyists to get the United States government to oppose it, as
-well. And indeed, that is just what was reported to have happened. According
-to Jonathan Krim of the <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, Microsoft's
-lobbyists succeeded in getting the United States government to veto the
-meeting.<sup>[<a name="id2747169" href="#ftn.id2747169" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> And without U.S. backing, the
-meeting was canceled.
+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="idp5856000" href="#ftn.idp5856000" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5859696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5860464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5860896"></a><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 åndsverksloven som
+Microsoft.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5866856"></a><p>
+Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
+programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
+bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet. Og
+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="idp5868648" href="#ftn.idp5868648" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
+møtet avlyst.
</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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5870728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5871448"></a><p>
Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
-møtet. Igjen, siterert av krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
+møtet. Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
-"programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er å
-fremme immatterielle rettigheter.". Hun skal i følge sitatet ha sagt, "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."
-</p><p>
+<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><a class="indexterm" name="idp5873336"></a><p>
Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
-</p><p>
-For det første er de ganske enkelt enkelt ikke riktige. Som jeg beskrev, er
-det meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
-immaterielle retten kalt "opphavsrett". Uten den vil begresningene definert
-av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si at de "går imot"
-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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5874304"></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="idp5876328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5877432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5877936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5878312"></a><p>
For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
-"fremme" 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><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 "waive" or "disclaim" 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="id2747296"></a>
-</p><p>
-
-Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte "som har som sitt formål
-å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter", 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 "frakrive" eller "frafalle" 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>
+<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="idp5880160"></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><a class="indexterm" name="idxfeudalsystem"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpropertyrightsfeudalsystemof"></a><p>
Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
-anglo-amerikansk tradisjon. Det kalles "føydalisme". 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
+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="id2747336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2747342"></a><p>
-As Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite relate, this is precisely the choice we
-are now making about intellectual property.<sup>[<a name="id2747353" href="#ftn.id2747353" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup> We will have an information society. That much is certain. Our only
-choice now is whether that information society will be
-<span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span> or <span class="emphasis"><em>feudal</em></span>. The trend is
-toward the feudal.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5888840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5889256"></a><p>
+Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
+vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="idp5890048" href="#ftn.idp5890048" 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
+mot det føydale.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5891976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5892672"></a><p>
Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette. En heftig debatt brøt ut i
kommentarfeltet. Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening. Men det var spesielt en
kommentar som gjorde meg trist. En anonym kommentator skrev,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp5894296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5895064"></a><p>
George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
-("målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
+(<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"), 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.
+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
å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
-avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jussstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har
-noen illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
+avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
+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>
-Det var dermot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen. I
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5898368"></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 "målet" til myndighetene være "å fremme den riktige balanse" for
-immaterielle rettigheter. Det var åpenbart tåpelig for ham. Og det
-avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige utopisme. "Typisk for en
-akademiker", kunne forfatteren like gjerne ha fortsatt.
+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 aburde
-urealisistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i
-vårt eget lands historie).
+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>
Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
-"oppnå balanse", 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 ideen om å forvente bedre av
-myndighetene er absurd, at ideen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant og
-ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden,
-blitt?
+<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="id2747475"></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 eierskapregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
-mediaeierskap, 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="id2747496"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2747502"></a>
+</p><p>
+Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5903728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5904136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5904512"></a><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 fientlige høringene som ledet
+senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt. Det var
-ingen betydnigsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
+ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
</p><p>
Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet. Å
aktører. Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
</p><p>
-Faren med mediakonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
+Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
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 "stort", klokt eller ikke. At vi kan være motivert
-til å slåss mot "store" igjen ikke noe nytt.
+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>
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
-"intellektuell eiendom". Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
-tradisjon. Jeg agumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon. Men fordi evnen
-til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles "eiendom" ikke er lenger
-er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
+<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="id2747595"></a><p>
-Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
-at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2747608" href="#ftn.id2747608" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
-musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2747654" href="#ftn.id2747654" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
-har "stjålet" fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
-over.<sup>[<a name="id2747672" href="#ftn.id2747672" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5912248"></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="idp5913336" href="#ftn.idp5913336" 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="idp5917472" href="#ftn.idp5917472" 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="idp5918984" href="#ftn.idp5918984" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym—rapporterer
-"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". 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="id2747688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2747712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2747718"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2747725"></a><p>
-
-I mens på andre siden av atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
-bygge opp et "kreativt arkiv" som britiske borgere kan laste ned BBC-innhold
-fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2747742" href="#ftn.id2747742" 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="id2747763" href="#ftn.id2747763" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten mer
-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 omforme RCAene av i dag til Causbyere.
+<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="idp5921752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5922128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5922544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5922960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5923384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5923800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5924216"></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="idp5925584" href="#ftn.idp5925584" 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="idp5927104" href="#ftn.idp5927104" 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 name="ftn.id2746404" href="#id2746404" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5772888" href="#idp5772888" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
-Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, "Final Report: Integrating
-Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" (London, 2002),
+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 name="ftn.id2746482" href="#id2746482" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5782824" href="#idp5782824" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
-See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
-<em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
-Press, 2003), 37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2746490"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2746499"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746518" href="#id2746518" class="para">197</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="idp5783432"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5784008"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5441968" href="#idp5441968" 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 name="ftn.id2746547" href="#id2746547" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5787600" href="#idp5787600" 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, a
-Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
-(Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746641" href="#id2746641" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
-
-
-
-See Sabin Russell, "New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's Needs at
-Odds with Firms' Profit Motive," <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> ("compulsory licenses
-and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual property
-protection"); Robert Weissman, "AIDS and Developing Countries: Democratizing
-Access to Essential Medicines," <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, "TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and the
-HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual Property
-Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis," <em class="citetitle">Widener Law Symposium
-Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746766" href="#id2746766" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
+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.idp5793928" href="#idp5793928" 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
+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>
+<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
+the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
+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.idp5831336" href="#idp5831336" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
-Jonathan Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," <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, "Global
-Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir," <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,
-"U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO," <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 name="ftn.id2746969" href="#id2746969" 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.idp5840088" href="#idp5840088" 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 name="ftn.id2746824" href="#id2746824" 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 "open
-source" software or software in the public domain. Microsoft's principal
-opposition is to "free software" licensed under a "copyleft" license,
-meaning a license that requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any
-derivative work. See Bradford L. Smith, "The Future of Software: Enabling
-the Marketplace to Decide," <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.idp5856000" href="#idp5856000" 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 name="ftn.id2747169" href="#id2747169" 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.idp5868648" href="#idp5868648" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
-Krim,
"The Quiet War over Open-Source," tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747353" href="#id2747353" 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.idp5890048" href="#idp5890048" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
-See Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
-210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2746541"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747608" href="#id2747608" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
+Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5787232"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5913336" href="#idp5913336" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
-John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," 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, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," 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, "Sued for a
-Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers," <em class="citetitle">New York
-Daily News</em>, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits
-Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in
-N.Y. Among Defendants," <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September
-2003, E1; Katie Dean, "Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA," <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 name="ftn.id2747654" href="#id2747654" 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.idp5917472" href="#idp5917472" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
-Jon Wiederhorn, "Eminem Gets Sued . . . by a Little Old Lady," 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 name="ftn.id2747672" href="#id2747672" 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.idp5918984" href="#idp5918984" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
-Kenji Hall, Associated Press, "Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for Dylan
-
Songs," Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <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 name="ftn.id2747742" href="#id2747742" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp5925584" href="#idp5925584" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
-"BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public," 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 name="ftn.id2747763" href="#id2747763" 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.idp5927104" href="#idp5927104" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
-"Creative Commons and Brazil," 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="Kapittel 7. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Kapittel 7. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbyggeing av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></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.
-</p><p>
-I divide this map into two parts: that which anyone can do now, and that
-which requires the help of lawmakers. If there is one lesson that we can
-draw from the history of remaking common sense, it is that it requires
-remaking how many people think about the very same issue.
-</p><p>
-That means this movement must begin in the streets. It must recruit a
-significant number of parents, teachers, librarians, creators, authors,
-musicians, filmmakers, scientists—all to tell this story in their own
-words, and to tell their neighbors why this battle is so important.
-</p><p>
-Once this movement has its effect in the streets, it has some hope of having
-an effect in Washington. We are still a democracy. What people think
-matters. Not as much as it should, at least when an RCA stands opposed, but
-still, it matters. And thus, in the second part below, I sketch changes that
-Congress could make to better secure a free culture.
-</p><div class="sect1" title="Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>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.
-</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—"All Rights Reserved"— and those
-who reject copyright—"No Rights Reserved." The "All Rights Reserved"
-sorts believe that you should ask permission before you "use" a copyrighted
-work in any way. The "No Rights Reserved" sorts believe you should be able
-to do with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or
-not.
-</p><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>
+
-When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
-tilted in the "no rights reserved" 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 "no rights reserved." Content was
-"taken" regardless of the rights. Any rights were effectively unprotected.
-</p><p>
-This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
-by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
-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 "no rights reserved," the future architecture will make the
-effective default "all rights reserved." The architecture and law that
-surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an environment
-where all use of content requires permission. The "cut and paste" world
-that defines the Internet today will become a "get permission to cut and
-paste" world that is a creator's nightmare.
-</p><p>
-What's needed is a way to say something in the middle—neither "all
-rights reserved" nor "no rights reserved" but "some rights reserved"—
-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="sect2" title="Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><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 "privacy" of
-your browsing habits was assured.
+
+<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
+historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
+hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
+</p><p>
+Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene. Det må rekrutteres et
+signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
+musikere, filmskapere, forskere—som alle må fortelle denne historien
+med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
+så viktig.
+</p><p>
+Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
+at det kan ha effekt i Washington. Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
+mener betyr noe. Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
+imot, men likevel, det betyr noe. Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
+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>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Sunn fornuft</strong></span> er på same side som
+opphavsrettskrigerne på grunn av at debatten så langt har vært rammet inn
+rundt ytterpunktene—som en stor entel/eller: enten eiendom eller
+anarki, enten total kontroll eller så får ikke kunstnerne betalt. Hvis
+dette virkelig var valget så burde krigerne vinne.
+</p><p>
+Tabben her er feilen med å utelukke den gyldne middelvei. Det er
+ytterpunkter i denne debatten, men ytterpunktene er ikke det hele. Det er
+de som tror på maksimal opphavsrett—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alle rettigheter
+reservert</span>»</span>—og de som avviser opphavsrett—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen
+rettigheter reservert</span>»</span>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alle rettigheter
+reservert</span>»</span>-typen mener du bør spørre om tillatelse før du
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bruker</span>»</span> et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk på noe vis.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen rettigheter reservert</span>»</span>-typen mener du bør kunne gjøre
+med innhold som du selv ønsker uavhengig av om du har tillatelse eller ikke.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetinitialfreecharacterof"></a><p>
+
+Da internettet ble skapt, ga dets arkitektur i effekt en helning mot
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ingen rettigheter reservert</span>»</span>. Innhold kunne kopieres billig
+og uten kvalitetstap og rettigheter kunne ikke enkelt kontrolleres. Dermed
+var, uavhengig av hva noen ønsket, det effektive regimet for opphavsrett
+under den originale utformingen av internettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ingen rettigheter
+reservert</span>»</span>. Innhold ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tatt</span>»</span> uavhengig av
+rettighetene. Alle rettigheter var effektivt ubeskyttet.
+</p><p>
+Denne opprinnelige egenskapen ga en reaksjon (med motsatt fortegn, men ikke
+helt likt) fra opphavsrettseierne. Den reaksjonen har vært tema for denne
+boken. Gjennom lovgiving, søksmål og endringer i nettverkets utforming har
+opphavsrettsinnehaverne vært i stand ti lå endre den grunnlegende egenskapen
+til omgivelsen for det originale internett. Hvis den opprinnelige
+arkitekturen gir et effektivt utgangspunkt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ingen rettigheter
+reserver</span>»</span>, så vil fremtidens arkitektur gjøre det effektive
+utgangspunktet til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">alle rettigheter reservert</span>»</span>. Arkitekturen
+og loven som omgir internettets utforming vil i stadig større grad gi en
+omgivelse hvor all bruk av innhold krever tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Klipp og
+lim</span>»</span>-verden som definerer internettet i dag vil bli en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skaff
+tillatelse til å klippe og lime</span>»</span>-verden som er en skapers mareritt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5943728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5944448"></a><p>
+Det som trengs er en måte å si noe i midten—hverken <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">alle
+rettigheter reservert</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ingen rettigheter
+reservert</span>»</span> men <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noen rettigheter reservert</span>»</span>—og
+dermed en måte å respektere opphavsretter mens en gjør det mulig for
+skaperne å frigjøre innhold når de ønsker det. Med andre ord, vi trenger en
+måte å gjeninnføre settet med friheter som vi kunne ta for gitt tidligere.
+</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="idxfreeculturerestorationeffortsonpreviousaspectsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrowsing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprivacyrights2"></a><p>
+Hvis du trer tilbake fra slaget jeg har beskrevet her, så vil du kjenne
+igjen dette problemet fra andre omgivelser. Tenk på personvern. Før
+internettet trengte ikke de fleste av oss å bekymre oss over hvor mye data
+om våre liv som vi kringkastet til verden. Hvis du gikk inn i en bokhandler
+og tittet på verkene til Karl Marx, så trengte du ikke bekymre deg for å
+måtte forklare hva du tittet på for dine naboer eller din sjef.
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Personvernet</span>»</span> rundt hva du tittet på var sikret.
</p><p>
Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
</p><p>
-Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter 10, 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 privacy would not be assured. But that's because the CIA
-would (we hope) find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to
-track you. But 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 "privacy" 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="id2747956"></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 "recently viewed"
-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 "privacy" protected by the friction
-disappears, too.
-</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 "right" 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>
-
-It is this reality that explains the push of many to define "privacy" 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="id2747993" href="#ftn.id2747993" 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 who believe in privacy to
-affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given by default.
-</p><p>
-A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
-movement. When computers with software were first made available
-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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2748029"></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
-smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
-seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
-</p><p>
-In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
-math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
-offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
-take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
-believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
-you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
-should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
-too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
-else?
-</p><p>
-No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
-computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
-to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
-to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
-peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
-and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
-market than it was for you.
-</p><p>
-
-Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
-1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code. The world of
-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 "Linux" kernel was
-added to produce the GNU/Linux operating system.
-</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
-Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
-for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
-GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
-assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
-remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
-innovative creative code was a byproduct.
-</p><p>
-Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
-privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
-for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
-copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
-software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
-passively guaranteed.
-</p><p>
-Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
-the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
-journals are produced.
-</p><p>
-
-As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
-printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
-libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
-knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
-libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
-through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
-happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
-electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
-service. Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
-free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
-charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
-opinion through their respective services.
-</p><p>
-There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
-charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
-people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge. The law has
-agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
-there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
-nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
-the public domain.
-</p><p>
-But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
-through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
-data except by paying for a subscription?
-</p><p>
-As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
-scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
-libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
-library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
-library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
-certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
-articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
-institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
-(architecture)—namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
-paper journal.
-</p><p>
-As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
-libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
-that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
-disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
-and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
-</p><p>
-This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
-freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
-example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
-available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
-that work to the Public Library of Science. That work is then subject to
-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="id2748213"></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
-doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
-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></div><div class="sect2" title="Gjenoppbyggeing av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>Gjenoppbyggeing av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
-The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the
-increasing control effected through law and technology.
-</p><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
-of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
-build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
-the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
-to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
-possible.
-</p><p>
-
-<span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>—which means without a middleman, or
-without a lawyer. By developing a free set of licenses that people can
-attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
-that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
-machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
-to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
-together—a legal license, a human-readable description, and
-machine-readable tags—constitute a Creative Commons license. A
-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 "All" or "No" extremes. Content is marked with the CC mark, which does
-not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain freedoms are given.
-</p><p>
-These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
-contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
-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 ("share and share alike"). 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.
-</p><p>
-These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
-copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
-use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
-subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
-lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
-a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
-choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
-that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
-</p><p>
-This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And of
-course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
-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 ("content conducers," 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="id2748338"></a>
-</p><p>
-The aim is not to fight the "All Rights Reserved" 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 imagined. The
-rules may well have made sense against a background of technologies from
-centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the background of digital
-technologies. New rules—with different freedoms, 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>
-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
-Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
-Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
-</p><p>
-Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
-like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1) those who will buy
-Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
-hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
-Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
-it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2) will download Cory's book, like
-it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods. If there are more
-(2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
-will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
-</p><p>
-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>
-
-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
-All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
-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.
-</p><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 "sampling license" 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. This is consistent with their own art—they, too, sample from
-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 "allow" Public
-Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so high<sup>[<a name="id2748422" href="#ftn.id2748422" 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.
-</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 "All Rights Reserved" 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 "Some Rights Reserved," 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
-objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
-partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
-technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
-Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
-build content based upon content set free.
-</p><p>
-These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
-arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
-showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
-innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
-rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
-possible.
-</p><p>
-Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
-creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
-project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
-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="id2748509"></a></div></div><div class="sect1" title="Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>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><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
-step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
-end.
-</p><div class="sect2" title="1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
-If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
-upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed. If
-you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
-airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
-</p><p>
-
-
-These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
-that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
-</p><p>
-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 "formalities" are banished.
-</p><p>
-Why?
-</p><p>
-As I suggested in chapter 10, 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
-protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
-</p><p>
-But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
-burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
-creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
-whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
-others. There are no records, there is no system to trace— there is no
-simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
-the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
-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="id2748608" href="#ftn.id2748608" 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>
-The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
-copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
-these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
-something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
-banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
-approving standards developed by others.
-</p><div class="sect3" title="Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
-Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
-Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
-registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
-agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
-of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee. And as
-the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
-office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
-know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
-first reaction is panic—nothing could be worse than forcing people to
-deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
-</p><p>
-Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
-extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
-innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed. Just because
-there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
-government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
-incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
-that the government sets.
-</p><p>
-In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet. There
-are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world. Domain name
-owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
-alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
-registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
-registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
-importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
-</p><p>
-
-We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
-copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
-it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
-database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
-registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
-one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
-renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
-of this formality—while producing a database of registrations that
-would facilitate the licensing of content.
-</p></div><div class="sect3" title="Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
-It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
-work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
-failing to comply with a regulatory rule—akin to imposing the death
-penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights. Here again,
-there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
-way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
-be enforced uniformly across all media.
-</p><p>
-The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
-and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
-to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
-</p><p>
-One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
-different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
-how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
-marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
-differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
-technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
-failure to mark—not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
-right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
-</p><p>
-
-Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
-published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
-not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
-anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
-and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
-permission.<sup>[<a name="id2748731" href="#ftn.id2748731" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
-work would therefore be "use unless someone complains." If someone does
-complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work in any new
-work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing uses. This
-would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark their work.
-</p><p>
-That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
-again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
-to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
-that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
-elsewhere.
-</p><p>
-For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
-marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
-Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
-Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
-and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
-consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
-and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
-would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
-its other important functions.
-</p><p>
-Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
-If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
-not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
-taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
-not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
-possible.
-</p><p>
-The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
-does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
-unclear.
-</p><p>
-If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
-difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed. It
-would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
-simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
-it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
-the appropriate time.
-</p></div></div><div class="sect2" title="2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
-The term of copyright has gone from fourteen years to ninety-five years for
-corporate authors, and life of the author plus seventy years for natural
-authors.
-</p><p>
-In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
-seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
-of renewal every five years. That seemed radical enough at the time. But
-after we lost <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="id2748853" href="#ftn.id2748853" 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
-term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
-that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
+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
+privacy would not be assured. But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
+find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
+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
+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="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5953888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></a><p>
+Inn kommer internettet, hvor kostnaden med å spore spesielt det blir bladd i
+har blitt svært liten. Hvis du er en kunde av Amazon, så vil Amazon samle
+informasjon om hva du har sett på mens du tittet på sidene der. Du vet
+dette på grunn av at det i en spalte på siden vises en liste med
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nylig sette</span>»</span> sider. På grunn av arkitekturen til nettet og
+hvordan informasjonskapsler fungerer på nettet, så er det enklere å samle
+inn disse dataene enn å la være. Friksjonen har forsvunnet, og dermed
+forsvinner også ethvert <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personvern</span>»</span> som var beskyttet av denne
+friksjonen.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5957072"></a><p>
+Amazon er naturligvis ikke problemet. Men vi kan begynne å bekymre oss for
+biblioteker. Hvis du er en av disse sprø venstrevridde som mener at folk
+bør ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten</span>»</span> til å bla igjennom et bibliotek uten at
+myndighetene får vite hvilke bøker du ser på (jeg er også en av disse
+venstrevridde), da kan det hende denne endringen i teknologien for
+overvåkning angår deg. Hvis det blir enkelt å samle inn og sortere hvem som
+gjør hva i det elektroniske rom, så forsvinner det friksjons-induserte
+personvernet fra tidligere tider.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5958952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5959576"></a><p>
+
+Det er denne virkeligheten som forklarer at mange gjør en innsats for å
+definere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personvern</span>»</span> på internettet. Det er erkjennelsen om
+at teknologi kan fjerne det friksjon før ga oss som får mange til å be om
+lover som gjør det friksjonen gjorde.<sup>[<a name="idp5961224" href="#ftn.idp5961224" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup>
+Og uansett om du er for eller imot disse lovene, så er det mønsteret som er
+det viktige her. Vi må ta aktive steg for å sikre en slags frihet som var
+passivt sikret tidligere. En endring i teknologi tvinger nå de som tror på
+personvern til å gjøre aktive handlinger der hvor personvern tidligere var
+gitt som utgangspunkt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5963904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5964544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5965264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5965680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
+En lignende historie kan fortelles om stiftelsen av fri
+programvare-bevegelsen. Da datamaskiner med programvare først ble gjort
+kommersielt tilgjengelig var programvaren—både kildekoden og
+binærene—fritt tilgjengelig. Du kunne ikke kjøre et program skrevet
+for en Data General-maskin på en IBM-maskin, så Data General og IBM brydde
+seg ikke mye om å kontrollere programvaren sin.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstallmanrichard"></a><p>
+Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i og som forsker ved MIT
+lærte han å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til å utforske
+og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Som en av de smarte
+typene, i tillegg til å være en flink programmerer, begynte Stallman å
+basere seg på friheten han hadde til bygge på eller endre på andre personers
+verker.
+</p><p>
+I hvert fall i akademia er ikke dette en veldig radikal idé. Ved et
+matematisk institutt ville enhver ha friheten til å fikle med et bevis som
+noen andre la frem. Hvis du trodde du hadde en bedre måte å bevise et
+teorem, så kunne du ta det noen andre hadde gjort og endre det. Ved et
+institutt for klassisk historie, hvis du mente en kollegas oversettelse av
+en nylig oppdaget tekst hadde feil, så hadde du friheten til å forbedre
+den. Dermed, for Stallman, virket det åpenbart at du burde stå fritt til å
+fikle med og forbedre koden som kjørte på en maskin. Dette var også
+kunnskap. Hvorfor skulle det ikke være åpent for kritikk på samme måte som
+alt annet?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxproprietarycode"></a><p>
+Ingen svarte på det spørsmålet. Istedet endret arkitekturen for inntekter i
+dataverden seg. Etter hvert som det ble mulig å importere programmer fra et
+system til et annet, det ble økonomisk attraktivt (i hvert fall etter noens
+syn) å skjule koden til programmet som man laget. I tillegg begynte
+selskaper å selge ekstrautstyr til stormaskiner. Hvis jeg bare kunne ta din
+printerdriver og kopiere den, så ville det gjøre det enklere for meg enn det
+var for deg å selge en printer i markedet.
+</p><p>
+
+Dermed begynte praksisen med proprietær kode å spre seg, og tidlig på
+1980-tallet fant Stallman at han var omringet av proprietær kode. Verden av
+fri programvare hadde blitt fjernet av en endring i økonomien rundt
+databehandling. Og han trodde at hvis han ikke gjorde noe med dette, så
+ville friheten til å endre og dele programvare bli fundamentalt svekket.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5973296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5973936"></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="idp5975264"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5975688"></a>
+</p><p>
+Stallmans teknikk var å bruke åndsverksloven til å bygge en verden av
+programvare som må forbli fri. Programvare lisensiert med GPL fra Free
+Software Foundation kan ikke endres og distribueres uten at kildekoden for
+den programvaren også blir gjort tilgjengelig. Dermed må enhver som bygger
+på GPL-et programvare også frigjøre sitt byggverk. Dette trodde Stallman
+ville sikre, at en økologi av kode ville utvikle seg som forble fri for
+andre å bygge på. Hans fundamentale mål var frihet. Nyskapende kreativ
+kode var et biprodukt.
+</p><p>
+Stallman gjorde dermed for programvare det personvernforkjempere nå gjør for
+personvern. Han søkte etter en måte å gjenoppbygge den type frihet som før
+var tatt for gitt. Gjennom aktiv bruk av lisenser som gjelder for
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet kildekode, gjenerobret Stallman aktivt en arena der
+fri programvare ville overleve. Han beskyttet aktivt det som før hadde vært
+passivt garantert.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5977960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5978680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
+Til slutt, la oss se på et veldig nytt eksempel som resonerer mer direkte
+med historien i denne boken. Dette er overgangen for hvordan akademiske og
+vitenskapelige tidsskrifter blir produsert.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5983344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5983904"></a><p>
+
+Etter hvert som teknologien utviklet seg, blir det åpenbart for mange at å
+skrive ut tusenvis av kopier av tidsskrifter hver måned og sende dem til
+biblioteker kanskje ikke er den mest effektive måten å spre kunnskap. I
+stedet blir tidsskrifter mer og mer elektroniske, og biblioteker og deres
+brukere gis tilgang til disse elektroniske tidsskriftene gjennom
+passord-beskyttede nettsteder. Noe lignende har skjedd innen justissektoren
+i nesten tredve år: Lexis og Westlaw har hatt elektroniske versjoner av
+domstolavgjørelser tilgjengelig for sine tjeneste-abonnenter. Selv om en
+høyesterettsdom ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, og enhver står fritt til å gå
+til et bibliotek og lese den, så står Lexis og Westlaw også fritt til å
+kreve betaling fra sine brukerne for å gi tilgang til den samme
+høyesterettsdommen gjennom deres respektive tjenester.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5986728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
+Det er generelt ingenting galt med dette, og muligheten til å ta betalt for
+tilgang selv for allemannseid materiale er helt klart et godt insentiv for
+folk til å utvikle nye og nyskapende måter å spre kunnskap. Loven har vært
+enig, hvilket er det som gjør at Lexis og Westlaw har fått lov til å
+blomstre. Og hvis det ikke er noe galt med å selge det som er allemannseie,
+så bør det i prinspippet ikke være noe galt i å selge tilgang til materiale
+som ikke er allemannseie.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5989296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5989992"></a><p>
+Men hva hvis den eneste måten å få tilgang til sosiale og vitenskapelige
+data var gjennom proprietære tjenester? Hva hvis ingen hadde muligheten til
+å bla igjennom disse datasettene uten å betale for et abonnement?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlibrariesjournalsin"></a><p>
+Som flere begynner å oppdage, er dette stadig oftere virkeligheten med
+vitenskapelige tidsskrifter. Da disse tidsskriftene ble distribuert i
+papirutgaven, kunne bibliotekene gjøre tidsskriftene tilgjengelig for enhver
+som hadde tilgang til biblioteket. Dermed kunne pasienter med kreft bli
+kreft-eksperter på grunn av at biblioteket ga dem tilgang. Eller pasienter
+som forsøkte å forstå risikoen med en bestemt behandling kunne forske på
+disse risikoene ved å lese alle tilgjengelige artikler om den behandlingen.
+Denne friheten var dermed et resultat av hvordan biblioteker fungerte
+(normer) og teknologien til papirtidsskrifter (arkitektur)—nemlig at
+det var veldig vanskelig a kontrollere tilgang til et papirtidsskrift.
+</p><p>
+Etter hvert som tidsskrift blir elektroniske krever derimot utgiverne at
+bibliotekene ikke gir alle tilgang til tidsskriftene. Dette betyr at
+frihetene som papirtidsskrifter ga i offentlige biblioteker begynner å
+forsvinne. Dermed, på samme måte som med personvern og programvare,
+endringer i teknologien og markedet krymper en frihet som vi tok for gitt
+tidligere.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5993408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5994712"></a><p>
+
+Denne reduserte friheten har fått mange til å ta aktive steg for å
+gjenopprette friheten som har gått tapt. Et eksempel er Det Offentlige
+Vitenskapsbiblioteket (PLoS), som er et ikkekommersielt selskap dedikert til
+å gjøre vitenskapeling forskning tilgjengelig til alle som har en
+nettforbindelse. Forfattere av vitenskapelige verk laster sitt verk opp til
+Det Offentlige Vitenskapsbiblioteket. Dette verket går så igjennom
+fagfellevurdering. Hvis det blir akseptert, så blir verket så lagret i et
+offentlig, elektronisk arkiv og gjort gratis og permanent tilgjengelig.
+PLoS selger også trykte utgaver av verkene, men opphavsretten til
+papirtidsskriftene fratar ingen retten til å fritt videredistribuere verket.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5996936"></a><p>
+Dette er en av mange slike anstrengelser for å gjenopprette en frihet som
+tidligere ble tatt for gitt, men som nå er truet av endringer i teknologi og
+marked. Det er ingen tvil om at dette alternativet konkurrerer med de
+tradisjonelle forlagene og deres innsats for å tjene penger fra den
+eksklusive distribusjonen av innhold. Men konkurranse antas i vår tradisjon
+for å være bra—spesielt når det bidrar til å spre kunnskap og
+vitenskap.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp5997744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5999440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6000120"></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="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
+Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
+kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6002728"></a><p>
+Inn kommer Creative Commons. Creative Commons er et ikke-kommersielt
+selskap etablert i Massachusetts, men med hjemmet sitt ved Stanford
+University. Selskapets mål er å bygge et lag av
+<span class="emphasis"><em>rimelig</em></span> opphavsrett på toppen av ekstremene som nå
+regjerer. Det gjør dette ved å gjøre det enkelt for folk å bygge på andre
+folks verk, ved å gjøre det enkelt for skapere å uttrykke friheten for andre
+til å ta og bygge på deres verk. Dette gjøres mulig med enkle merker,
+knyttet til menneskelesbare beskrivelser, som igjen er knyttet til vanntette
+lisenser.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Enkelt</em></span>—som betyr uten en mellommann eller uten en
+advokat. Ved å utvikle et fritt sett med lisenser som folk kan knytte til
+sitt innhold, sikter Creative Commons å merke en rekke innhold som enkelt og
+pålitelig kan bygges på. Disse merkene er så lenket til maskinlesbare
+versjoner av lisensen som gjør det mulig for datamaskiner å automatisk
+identifisere innhold som enkelt kan deles. Denne samlingen av tre
+uttrykk—en juridisk lisens, en menneske-lesbar beskrivelse og et
+maskinlesbart merke—utgjør en Creative Commons-lisens. En Creative
+Commons-lisens utgjør en tildeling av frihet til enhver som har tilgang til
+lisensen. Og viktigere, et uttrykk for at personen som bruker lisensen tror
+på noe annet enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alle</span>»</span>- eller
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen</span>»</span>-ytterkantene. Innhold merket med CC-merket betyr ikke
+at en har sagt fra seg opphavsretten, men derimot at enkelte friheter er
+gitt bort.
+</p><p>
+Disse frihetene går ut over friheten som loves av rimelig bruk. Frihetenes
+presise omriss er avhenging av valgene som skaperen gjør. Skaperen kan velge
+en lisens som tillater enhver bruk, så lenge opphavspersonen navngis. Hun
+kan velge en lisens som kun tillater ikke-kommersiell bruk. Hun kan velge
+en lisens som tillater enhver bruk så lenge de samme friheter gis videre til
+andre brukere (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">del på like vilkår</span>»</span>). Eller enhver bruk så
+lenge ingen bearbeidelse blir gjort. Eller enhver bruk i utviklingsland.
+Eller enhver bruk som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">smakebit</span>»</span>, så lenge det ikke lages
+komplette kopier. Og til slutt, enhver bruk til opplæring.
+</p><p>
+Disse valgene etablerer dermed en rekke friheter som går ut over
+utgangspunktet i åndsverksloven. De muliggjør også friheter som går ut over
+tradisjonell rimelig bruk. Og det viktigste er at de uttrykker disse
+frihetene på en måte som de påfølgende brukerne kan bruke og basere seg på
+uten å hyre inn en advokat. Creative Commons sikter dermed mot å bygge et
+lag av innhold, styrt av et lag av fornuftig åndsverkslov, som andre kan
+bygge på. Frivillig valg fra individer og skapere vil gjøre dette innholdet
+tilgjengelig. Og dette innholdet vi så gjøre det mulig for oss å
+gjenopprette allemannseiet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6009832"></a><p>
+
+Dette er bare et av mange prosjekter innen Creative Commons. Og Creative
+Commons er naturligvis ikke den eneste organisasjonen som bidrar til slike
+friheter. Men det som skiller Creative Commons fra mange andre er at vi er
+ikke bare interessert i å snakke om et allemannseie eller i å få lovgiverne
+til å bidra til å bygge et allemannseie. Vårt mål er å bygge en bevegelse
+av konsumenter og produsenter av innhold
+(<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">innholds-kondusenter</span>»</span>, som advokat Mia Garlick kaller dem)
+som hjelper til å bygge allemannseie og demonstrerer med deres egne verker
+hvor viktig allemannseiet er for annen kreativitet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6012064"></a><p>
+Målet er ikke å sloss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">alle rettigheter
+reservert</span>»</span>-folkene. Målet er å utfylle dem. Problemene som loven
+skaper for oss som kultur er skapt av sinnsyke og utilsiktede konsekvenser
+av lover skrevet for århundrer siden, anvendt på en teknologi som kun
+Jefferson kunne ha forestilt seg. Reglene kan godt å gitt mening da
+bakgrunnen var teknologiene tilgjengelig for hundrevis av år siden, men de
+gir ikke mening når bakgrunnen er digitale teknologier. Nye
+regler—med andre friheter, uttrykket slik at mennesker uten advokater
+kan bruke dem—trengs. Creative Commons gir folk en effektiv måte å
+begynne å lage disse reglene.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline2"></a><p>
+Hvorfor ville skapere delta i å gi slipp på total kontroll? Noen deltar for
+å øke spredningen av deres innhold. Et eksempel er Cory Doctorow som er en
+science fiction-forfatter. Hans første roman, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in
+the Magic Kingdom</em>, ble sluppet gratis på nettet med en Creative
+Commons-lisens, samme dag som den ble lagt ut for salg i bokhandler.
+</p><p>
+Hvorfor ville en utgiver noen sinne gå med på dette? Jeg mistenker hans
+utgiver tenkte som dette: Det er to grupper av mennesker der ute: (1) de som
+vil kjøpe Corys bok uansett om den er på internettet eller ikke og (2)de som
+kanskje aldri hører om Corys bok hvis den ikke blir gjort tilgjengelig
+gratis på internettet. En del av (1) vil laste ned Corys bok i stedet for å
+kjøpe den. Vi kan kalle dem slemme-(1). En del av (2) vil laste ned Corys
+bok, like den, og deretter bestemme seg for å kjøpe den. Vi kan kalle dem
+gode-(2). Hvis det er flere gode-(2-) enn det er slemme-(1), så vil
+strategien med å gi ut Corys bok gratis på nettet antagelig
+<span class="emphasis"><em>øke</em></span> salget av Corys bok.
+</p><p>
+Faktisk støtter erfaringene fra hans utgiver helt klart denne konklusjonen.
+Førsteutgaven av boken var utsolgt flere måneder tidligere enn utgiveren
+hadde forventet. Denne første romanen til en science fiction-formfatter var
+en total suksess.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6017976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6018400"></a><p>
+
+Idéen om at gratis innhold kan øke verdien for ikke-gratis innhold var
+bekreftet av et eksperiment gjennomført av en annen forfatter. Peter Wayner,
+som skrev en bok om fri programvarebevegelsen med tittelen <em class="citetitle">Free
+For All</em>, gjorde en elektronisk utgave av boken gratis til
+gjengelig på nettet med en Creative Commons-lisens etter at boken var
+utsolgt fra forlaget. Han fulgte deretter med på prisen for boken i
+bruktbokhandler. Som forutsett, etter hvert som antall nedlastinger steg,
+steg også bruktprisen på boken.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6020432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6021128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6021520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6021928"></a><p>
+Dette er eksempler på bruk av Creative Commons for å bedre spre proprietært
+innhold. Jeg mener at dette er en nydelig og vanlig bruk av Creative
+Commons. Det er andre som bruker Creative Commons-lisenser av andre
+grunner. Mange som bruker <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling-lisensen</span>»</span> gjør det på
+grunn av at det ville være hyklerisk. Samling-lisensen sier at andre står
+fritt til, for kommersielle eller ikke-kommersielle formål, å bruke biter av
+innhold fra det lisensierte verket. De har bare ikke friheten til å gjøre
+hele innholdet tilgjengelig for andre. På grunn av at den
+<span class="emphasis"><em>juridiske</em></span> kostnaden med samling er så høy (Walter
+Leaphart, manager for rap-gruppen Public Enemy, som ble skapt ved å sample
+musikken til andre, har uttalt at han ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillater</span>»</span> Public
+Enemy å sample mer, på grunn av at den juridiske kostnaden er så
+høy<sup>[<a name="idp6024728" href="#ftn.idp6024728" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), slipper disse artistene innhold
+ut i det kreative miljøet som andre kan bygge videre på, slik at deres form
+for kreativitet kan vokse.
+</p><p>
+Til slutt er det mange som merker sitt innhold med en Creative
+Commons-lisens kun fordi de ønsker å uttrykke til andre hvor viktig de synes
+balanse er i denne debatten. Hvis du bare aksepterer systemet slik det er,
+så sier du i effekt at du tror på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">alle rettigheter
+reservert</span>»</span>-modellen. Fint for deg, men mange gjør ikke det. Mange
+tror at uansett hvor riktig den regelen er for Hollywood og gærninger, så er
+den ikke en riktig beskrivelse av hvordan de fleste skaperne ser på
+rettighetene knyttet til sitt innhold. Creative Commons-lisensen uttrykker
+begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noen rettigheter reservert</span>»</span>, og gir mange muligheten
+til å si det til andre.
+</p><p>
+
+I de første seks månedene av Creative Commons-eksperimentet, ble over en
+million objekter lisensiert med disse fri kultur-lisensene. Neste steg er
+partnerskap med mellomvare-tilbyderne av innhold for å hjelpe dem å bygge
+enkle måter for brukerne å merke innholdet med friheten gitt med Creative
+Commons inn i teknologiene de lager.
+</p><p>
+Dette er de første stegene for å gjenoppbygge et allemannseie. De er ikke
+kun argumentasjon, de er handlinger. A bygge allemannseiet er første steg
+for å vise folk hvor viktig dette er for kreativitet og nyskapning.
+Creative Commons baserer seg på frivillige steg for å få til denne
+gjenoppbyggingen. De vil føre til en verden hvor mer enn frivillige steg er
+mulig.
+</p><p>
+Creative Commons er bare ett eksempel på frivillig innsats fra
+enkeltpersoner og skapere for å endre blandingen av rettigheter som nå
+styrer det kreative området. Prosjektet konkurrerer ikke med
+opphavsretten. Den utfyller den. Dets mål er ikke å bekjempe rettighetene
+til forfatterne, men a gjøre det enklere for forfattere og skapere å utøve
+sine rettigheter mer fleksibelt og billigere. Den forskjellen, tror vi, vil
+gjøre det mulig for kreativiteten a spre seg lettere.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6030848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6031592"></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>Vi vil</strong></span> ikke vinne tilbake en fri kultur
+kun ved individuelle handlinger. Det trengs også viktige lovreformer. Vi
+har en lang vei a gå før politikerne vil lytte til disse ideene og
+implementere disse reformene. Men det betyr også at vi har tid til å bygge
+opp bevisstheten rundt endringene som trengs.
+</p><p>
+I dette kapittelet skisserer jeg fem typer endringer: fire som er generelle
+og en som er spesifikk for den mest opphetede kampen for tiden, musikk.
+Hver av dem er et steg, ikke et mål. Men hver av disse stegene vil føre oss
+et godt stykke mot vårt mål.
+</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
+Hvis du kjøper et hus, så må du registrere salget i et skjøte. Hvis du
+kjøper eiendom for å bygge et hus, så må du registrere kjøpet i et skjøte.
+Hvis du kjøper en bil så får du en eierskiftemelding og registrerer bilen.
+Hvis du kjøper en flybillett så har den navnet ditt på den.
+</p><p>
+
+
+Disse er alle formaliteter knyttet til eiendom. De er krav som vi alle må
+forholde oss til hvis vi ønsker at vår eiendom skal bli beskyttet.
+</p><p>
+Dette står i kontrast til gjeldende åndsverkslov, der du automatisk får
+opphavsrett uavhengig av om du overholder noen formaliteter eller ikke. Du
+trenger ikke å registrere den. Du trenger ikke en gang merke innholdet
+ditt. Utgangspunktet er kontroll, og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formaliteter</span>»</span> er
+bannlyst.
+</p><p>
+Hvorfor?
+</p><p>
+Som jeg foreslo i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, var motivasjonen for å avskaffe formalitetene god.
+I verden før digitale teknologier, la formalitetene en byrde på
+opphavsrettsinnehaverne uten at det ga nevneverdige fordeler. Dermed var
+det en fremgang da loven slakket opp på de formelle kravene som
+opphavsrettseieren måtte oppfylle for å beskytte og sikre sitt verk. Disse
+formalitetene kom i veien.
+</p><p>
+Men internettet endrer alt dette. Formaliteter trenger i dag ikke være en
+byrde. I stedet er det slik at en verden uten formaliteter er en verden som
+hemmer kreativiteten. I dag er det ingen enkel måte å vite hvem som eier
+hva, og hvem en må gjøre avtale med for å kunne bruke eller bygge på det
+kreative verket til andre. Det er intet register og det er intet system for
+å spore—det er ingen enkel måte å vite hvordan en får tillatelse. Og
+likevel er det, gitt den massive økningen i omfanget for opphavsrettens
+regler, et nødvendig steg å få tillatelse for ethvert verk som baserer seg
+på vår fortid. Og dermed tvinger <span class="emphasis"><em>fraværet</em></span> av
+formaliteter mange til å være stille der de ellers ville talt.
+</p><p>
+Loven burde derfor endre dette kravet<sup>[<a name="idp6040224" href="#ftn.idp6040224" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—men den bør ikke endres ved å gå tilbake til det gamle
+ødelagte systemet. Vi bør kreve formaliteter, men vi bør etablere et system
+som vil skape insentivene for å minimere byrden disse formalitetene påfører.
+</p><p>
+Det er tre viktige formaliteter: merke opphavsrettsbeskyttede verk,
+registrere opphavsrett og fornøye krav om opphavsrett. Tradisjonelt var den
+første av disse tre noe opphavsrettsinnehaveren gjorde og de andre to var
+noe myndighetene gjorde. Men et revidert system med formaliteter bør fjerne
+myndighetene fra prosessen, med unntak fra det ene formålet med å godkjenne
+standarder utviklet av andre.
+</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
+I det gamle systemet måtte en opphavsrettseier sende inn en registrering til
+opphavsrettskontoret for å registrere eller fornye opphavsretten. Når en
+sendte inn registreringen måtte opphavsrettseieren betale en avgift. Som
+med de fleste offentlige kontorer hadde opphavsrettskontoret lite insentiv
+til å minimere belastningen som registreringen ga. Det hadde også lite
+insentiv til å minimere avgiften. Og etter som opphavsrettskontoret ikke
+var et hovedmål for regjeringens politikk, har kontoret historisk vært
+veldig underfinansiert. Dermed, når folks om kjenner til prosessen hører
+denne ideen om formaliteter så er deres første reaksjon
+panikk—ingenting kan være verre enn å tvinge folk å forholde seg til
+rotet som heter opphavsrettskontoret.
+</p><p>
+Likevel har det alltid overrasket meg at vi, som kommer fra en tradisjon med
+ekstraordinær nyskapning innen myndighetsutforming, ikke lenger kan være
+nyskapende om hvordan myndighetsfunksjoner kan utformes. Det at det er et
+offentlig formål i en styringsrolle, betyr ikke at myndighetene er de eneste
+som kan administrere rollen. I stedet burde vi skape insentiver for at
+private aktører tilbyr tjenesten til offentligheten, i følge standarder som
+myndighetene definerer.
+</p><p>
+I en registrerings-sammenheng er internettet en opplagt modell. Det finnes
+minst 32 millioner nettsteder registrert rundt om i verden. Eiere av
+domenenavnene til disse nettstedene må betale en avgift for å beholde sin
+registrering. For de viktigste toppnivå-domenene (.com, .org, .net) er det
+et sentralt register. enkelte registreringene er derimot gjennomført av
+mange konkurrerende registrarer. Denne konkurransen presser ned
+registreringskostnadene, og enda viktigere så bidrar dette til å gjøre hver
+enkelt registrering enklere.
+</p><p>
+
+Vi burde ta i bruk en lignende modell for registrering og fornying av
+opphavsretter. Opphavsrettskontoret kan godt fungere som det sentrale
+registeret, men de burde ikke drive registrarvirksomhet. I stedet burde det
+etablere en database, og et sett med stadarder for registrarer. Det bør
+godkjenne registrarer som følger disse standardene. Disse registrarene
+ville dermed konkurrere med hverandre om å levere den billigste og enkleste
+systemet for å registrere og fornye opphavsretter. Denne konkurransen ville
+redusere betydelig belastningen som denne formaliteten gir—mens det
+gir en database over registreringer som kan forenkle lisensiering av
+innhold.
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.1.2. Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>16.2.1.2. Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
+Det å ikke merke kreative verker med opphavsrettsinformasjon førte tidligere
+til at en mistet opphavsretten. Det var en veldig streng straff for å ikke
+overholde en regulatorisk regel—omtrent som å dømme noen til
+dødsstraff for å få ha parkert ulovlig i kreativ rettighets-verden. Her er
+det heller ikke noen grunn til at markeringskravene trenger å bli håndhevd
+på denne måten. Og viktigere er at det ikke er noen grunn til at
+merkingskravene trenger å håndheves likt på tvers av alle medier.
+</p><p>
+Målet med merkingen er å signalisere til offentligheten at dette verket er
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet og at forfatteren ønsker a håndheve sine
+rettigheter. Merket gjør det også enkelt å spore opp en opphavsrettseier for
+å skaffe tillatelse til å bruke verket.
+</p><p>
+Et av problemene som opphavsrettssystemet konfronterte tidlig var at ulike
+opphavsrettsbeskyttede verker måtte markeres forskjellig. Det var ikke
+klart hvordan og hvor en statue skulle merkes, eller en plate, eller en
+film. Et nytt merkingskrav kan løse disse problemene ved å anerkjenne
+forskjellene i mediene, og ved å tillate merkings-systemet til å utvikle seg
+etter hvert som teknologien muliggjør det. Systemet kan muliggjøre et
+spesielt signal når en ikke merker—ikke miste opphavsretten, men miste
+retten til å straffe noen for å ikke ha skaffet seg tillatelse først.
+</p><p>
+
+La oss starte med det siste poenget. Hvis en opphavsrettsinnehaver tillater
+at hans verk blir publisert uten opphavsrettsmerking, så trenger ikke
+konsekvensen være at opphavsretten er tapt. Konsekvensen kan i stedet være
+at enhver da har rett til å bruke dette verket inntil
+opphavsrettsinnehaveren klager og demonstrerer at det er hans verk og at han
+ikke gir tillatelse.<sup>[<a name="idp6052592" href="#ftn.idp6052592" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> Meningen til et
+umerket verk ville dermed være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bruk med mindre noen klager</span>»</span>.
+Hvis noen klager, så er forpliktelsen at en må slutte å bruke verket i
+ethvert nytt verk fra da av, selv om det ikke er noen straffereaksjon
+knyttet til eksisterende bruk. Dette vil skape et sterkt insentiv for
+opphavsrettseiere til å merke sine verk.
+</p><p>
+Dette i sin tur reiser spørsmålet om hvordan et verk best bør merkes. Her må
+systemet igjen justere seg etter hvert som teknologiene utvikler seg. Den
+beste måten å sikre at systemet utvikler seg er å begrense
+opphavsrettskontorets rolle til å godkjenne standarder for å merke innhold
+som har vært utviklet av andre.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6057264"></a><p>
+For eksempel, hvis en plateindustriforening kommer opp med en metode for å
+merke CDer, så ville den foreslå dette til
+opphavsrettskontoret. Opphavsrettskontoret ville så holde en høring, hvor
+andre forslag kunne legges frem. Opphavsrettskontoret ville så velge det
+forslaget som det vurderte som det beste, og det ville basere valget
+<span class="emphasis"><em>utelukkende</em></span> på vurderingen om hvilken metode som best
+kunne integreres inn i registrering- og fornyings-systemet. Vi ville ikke
+basere oss på at myndighetene laget noe nytt, men vi ville basere oss på at
+myndighetene sikret at de nye produktene på linje med dets andre viktige
+funksjoner.
+</p><p>
+Til slutt vil klart markert innhold gjøre registreringskravene enklere.
+Hvis fotografier var merket med forfatter og år, så ville det være liten
+grunn til å ikke tillate en fotograf til å fornye for eksempel alle
+fotografier tatt i et bestemt år i et raskt steg. Målet med formaliteten er
+ikke å belaste skaperne. Systemet selv bør holdes så enkelt som mulig.
+</p><p>
+Formålet med formaliteter er å gjøre ting mer klart. Det eksisterende
+systemet gjør ingenting for å gjøre ting mer klart. Det virker heller som
+om det er utformet for å gjøre ting mindre klart.
+</p><p>
+Hvis formaliteter slik som registrering ble gjeninnført, så ville et av de
+mest vanskelige sidene med å stole på allemannseie bli fjernet. Det ville
+bli enkelt å identifisere hvilket innhold som kan antas å være fritt
+tilgjengelig. Det ville være enkelt å identifisere hvem som kontrollerer
+rettighetene for et bestemt type innhold. Det ville være enkelt å hevde
+disse rettighetene, og å fornye denne hevden på riktig tidspunkt.
+</p></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
+Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
+selskap har forfatterskapet, og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år for
+individuelle forfattere.
+</p><p>
+I <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> foreslo jeg syttifemårs
+vernetid, tildelt i femårsbolker med et krav om å fornye hvert femte år.
+Dette virket radikalt nok på den tiden. Men etter at vi tapte
+<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em> ble
+forslaget enda mer radikalt. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> anbefalte
+et forslag om fjorten års vernetid.<sup>[<a name="idp6064680" href="#ftn.idp6064680" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup>
+Andre har foreslått å knytte vernetiden til vernetiden for patenter.
+</p><p>
+Jeg er enig med de som tror vi trenger en radikal endring i opphavsretten
+levetid. Men hvorvidt den er fjorten år eller syttifem, så er det fire
+prinsipper som det er viktig å tenke på når det gjelder varighetenen til
+opphavsretten.
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
-<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
-to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
-protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
-publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
-extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
-when it no longer benefits an author.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Hold den kort:</em></span> Lengden bør være så lang at den gir
+nødvendig insentiv til å skape, men ikke lenger. Hvis den er knyttet opp
+til svært sterk beskyttelse for forfattere (slik at forfattere er i stand
+til å få tilbake rettigheter fra utgiverne), så kan rettigheter til samme
+verk (ikke avledede verk) bli ytterligere utvidet. Nøkkelen er å ikke binde
+verk opp med juridiske reguleringer når det ikke lenger gir fordeler til en
+forfatter.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-<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 "fair
-use," and the distinction between "ideas" and "expression." That kind of law
-gives them lots of work. But our framers had a simpler idea in mind:
-protected versus unprotected. The value of short terms is that there is
-little need to build exceptions into copyright when the term itself is kept
-short. A clear and active "lawyer-free zone" makes the complexities of "fair
-use" and "idea/expression" less necessary to navigate.
-
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-
-<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
-Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
-required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
-need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
-protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
-for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2748942" href="#ftn.id2748942" 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="id2748962"></a>
+<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 kompleksiteten 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"><a class="indexterm" name="idp6071896"></a><p>
+
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Hold det i live:</em></span> En bør være nødt til å fornye
+opphavsrettsbeskyttelsen. Spesielt hvis den maksimale varigheten er lang,
+så bør opphavsrettseieren være nødt til å signalisere regelmessig at han
+ønsker at beskyttelsen fortsetter. Dette trenger ikke være en enorm
+belastning, men det er ingen grunn til at denne monopolbeskyttelsen må deles
+ut gratis. I snitt tar det nitti minutter for en veteran å søke om
+pensjon.<sup>[<a name="idp6073272" href="#ftn.idp6073272" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup> Hvis vi belaster veteraner med
+så mye, så ser jeg ikke hvorfor vi ikke kan kreve at forfattere bruker ti
+minutter hvert femtiende år for å fylle ut et enkelt skjema.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
-should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
-given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
-law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
-possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
-authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
-that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
-will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
-increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
-the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
-increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923. What's
-not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now. </p></li></ol></div><p>
-These changes together should produce an <span class="emphasis"><em>average</em></span>
-copyright term that is much shorter than the current term. Until 1976, the
-average term was just 32.2 years. We should be aiming for the same.
-</p><p>
-Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene "radikale". (Tross alt, så
-kaller jeg dem "ekstremister".) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var
-lengre enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor "radikalt" kan det være å be
-om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var president?
-</p></div><div class="sect2" title="3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><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
-changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge. It made no sense
-anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
-technology.
-</p><p>
-Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors "exclusive right"
-to "their writings." Congress has given authors an exclusive right to "their
-writings" plus any derivative writings (made by others) that are
-sufficiently close to the author's original work. Thus, if I write a book,
-and you base a movie on that book, I have the power to deny you the right to
-release that movie, even though that movie is not "my writing."
-</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="id2749061" href="#ftn.id2749061" 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.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Hold det potensielt:</em></span> Uansett hva lengden på vernetiden
+i opphavsretten bør være, så er den klareste lærdommen økonomiene kan lære
+oss er at en levetid når den er gitt aldri bør bli utvidet. Det kan ha vært
+en tabbe i 1923 at loven kun tilbød forfattere en varighet på femtisyv år.
+Jeg tror ikke det, men det er mulig. Hvis det var en tabbe, så var
+konsekvensen at vi fikk færre forfattere som skrev i 1923 enn vi ellers
+ville hatt. Men vi kan ikke korrigere den feilen i dag ved å utvide
+vernetiden. Uansett hva vi gjør i dag, så kan vi ikke øke antallet
+forfattere som skrev i 1923. Vi kan naturligvis øke belønningen for de som
+skriver nå (eller alternativt, øke opphavsrettsbyrden som kveler mange
+verker som i dag er usynlige. Men å øke deres belønning vil ikke øke deres
+kreativitet i 1923. Det som ikke ble gjort ble ikke gjort, og det er
+ingenting vi kan gjøre med det nå. </p></li></ol></div><p>
+Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
+opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
+Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år. Vårt mål bør være
+det samme.
+</p><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="idp6080264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6080680"></a><p>
+Som jeg observerte i starten av denne boken, ga originalt eiendomsretten
+landeiere retten til å kontrollere sin eiendom fra joda og helt opp til
+himmelen. Så kom flymaskiner, og omfanget av eiendomsretter ble raskt
+endret. Det var intet oppstyr, ingen konstituell utfordring. Det ga ikke
+mening lenger å gi bort så mye kontroll, gitt fremveksten av denne nye
+teknologien.
+</p><p>
+Vår grunnlov gir kongressen myndighet til å tildele forfattere
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rett</span>»</span> til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">deres skrifter</span>»</span>. Kongressen
+har gitt forfattere en eksklusiv rett til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">deres skrifter</span>»</span>
+pluss alle avledede skrifter (laget av andre) som er tilstrekkelig nær
+forfatterens opprinnelige verk. Dermed, hvis jeg skriver en bok, og du
+baserer en film på den boken, så har jeg myndighet til å nekte deg å gi ut
+den filmen, selv om den filmen ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">min skrift</span>»</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6083992"></a><p>
+Kongressen innvilget opphavet til denne retten i 1870, da den utvidet den
+eksklusive retten i opphavsretten til å inneholde retten til å kontrollere
+oversettelser og dramatiseringer av et verk.<sup>[<a name="idp6084936" href="#ftn.idp6084936" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> Domstolene har utvidet det sakte gjennom lovfortolkninger siden
+da. Denne utvidelsen har vært kommentert av en av jussverdens beste
+dommere, dommer Benjamin Kaplan.
</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="id2749085" href="#ftn.id2749085" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
+Vi har blitt så tilvendt til utvidelsen av monopolet til en lang rekke med
+såkalte avledede verker at vi ikke lenger ser hvor rart det er å akseptere
+en slik utvidelse av opphavsretten mens vi nynner på abrakadabraen rundt
+idéer og uttrykk.<sup>[<a name="idp6086848" href="#ftn.idp6086848" 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
-sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
-copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant. Consider
-each limitation in turn.
-</p><p>
-<span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
-then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
-John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
-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="id2749115"></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
-"reuse" 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>
-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
-musical score—it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
-unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
-</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="id2749158" href="#ftn.id2749158" 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
-system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
-Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
-to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
-copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
-</p><p>
-
-The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
-part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
-conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
-to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
-would earn artists more income.
-</p></div><div class="sect2" title="4. Frigjør musikken—igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
-The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
-fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
-most pressing—music. There is no other policy issue that better
-teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
-music.
-</p><p>
-The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
-growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
-other single application. It was the Internet's killer app—possibly in
-two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
-for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
-regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
-</p><p>
-The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
-particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
-and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
-right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
-performing artist to control copies of her performance.
-</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 5, they enable
-four different kinds of sharing:
+Jeg tror det er på tide å anerkjenne at det er flymaskiner på dette området,
+og at utvidelser av rettigheter for avledede verker ikke lenger gir mening.
+Mer presist gir de ikke mening for hele verneperioden til opphavsretten. Og
+de gir ikke mening som ubegrenset tildeling. La oss vurdere hver
+begrensning for seg.
+</p><p>
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Vernetid:</em></span> Hvis kongressen ønsker å tildele avledede
+rettigheter, da bør den rettigheten ha mye kortere vernetid.. Det gir mening
+å beskytte John Grishams rett til å selge filmrettighetene til hans siste
+roman (eller i det minste er jeg villig til å anta at det gir mening), men
+det gir ikke mening at denne rettigheten skal vare like lenge som vernetiden
+til den underliggende opphavsretten. Den avledede rettigheten kan være
+viktig for å bidra til kreativitet, men den er ikke viktig lenge etter at
+det kreative arbeidet er ferdig. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6089216"></a>
+</p><p>
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Omfang:</em></span> På samme måte bør omfanget for avledede verker
+snevres inn. Her igjen er det noen tilfeller der avledede rettigheter er
+viktige. Disse bør spesifiseres. Men loven bør skille klart mellom
+regulert og uregulert bruk av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale. Da all
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gjenbruk</span>»</span> av kreativt materiale var under kontroll av
+bedrifter, så gjorde det kanskje mening å kreve advokater for å forhandle om
+hvor grensen gikk. Det gir ikke lenger mening å la advokater forhandle om
+hvor grensene går. Tenk på alle de kreative mulighetene som digitale
+teknologier muliggjør. Forestill deg så å helle sirup inn i maskinene. Det
+er hva dette generelle kravet om tillatelse gjør med den kreative
+prosessen. Den kveler den.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6091720"></a><p>
+Dette var poenget som Alben kom med da han beskrev hvordan han laget Clint
+Eastwood-CDen. Mens det gir mening å kreve forhandlinger for overskuelige
+avledede rettigheter—å lage en film av en bok, eller et noteark av et
+dikt—så gir det ikke mening å kreve forhandlinger for det
+uoverskuelige. Her gir en lovfestet rett mer mening.
+</p><p>
+I hver av disse tilfellene burde loven markere hvilke bruksområder som er
+beskyttet og en bør så kunne anta at andre bruksområder ikke er beskyttet.
+Dette er det motsatte av anbefalingen fra min kollega Paul
+Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="idp6093592" href="#ftn.idp6093592" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> Hans syn er at loven bør
+skrives slik at beskyttelsen utvides når bruksområdene utvides.
+</p><p>
+Analysen til GoldStein gir absolutt mening hvis kostnadene ved det
+rettssystemet var lave. Men som vi nå ser i sammenheng med internettet, gir
+usikkerhet rundt omfanget av beskyttelse, og insentivet til å beskytte den
+eksisterende arkitektur for inntekter kombinert med en sterk opphavsrett, en
+svekket nyskapningsprosess.
+</p><p>
+
+Loven kan motvirke dette problemet enten ved å fjerne beskyttelsen ut over
+de delene som er eksplisitt nevnt, eller ved å tillate gjenbruksretter på
+visse lovbestemte betingelser. Fro hver av disse alternativene ville
+effekten være å frigjøre en stor del av kulturen slik at andre kan få den
+til å vokse. Og under et lovbestemt rettighetsregime, så ville slik
+gjenbruk gi kunstnerne flere inntekter.
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
+Slaget som startet hele denne krigen var om musikk, så det ville ikke være
+rimelig å avslutte denne boken uten å ta opp problemet som er mest
+presserende for de fleste—musikk. Det er ingen andre policy-tema som
+bedre forklarer hva en kan lære i denne boken enn slagene om deling av
+musikk.
+</p><p>
+Appellen til fildeling var dopet for veksten til internettet. Det drev
+behovet for tilgang til internettet kraftigere enn noe annet
+enkeltbruksområde. Det var internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">*killer
+app*</span>»</span>—kanskje i to betydninger av ordet. Det var uten tvil det
+bruksområdet som drev etterspørselen etter båndbredde. Det kan godt endte
+opp med å være bruksområdet som driver igjennom krav om reguleringer som til
+slutt dreper nyskapning pa nettet.
+</p><p>
+Målet med opphavsrett, både generelt og for musikk spesielt, er å skape
+insentiver for å komponere, fremføre og aller viktigst, spre, musikk. Loven
+gjør dette ved å gi en eksklusiv rett til en komponist til å kontrollere
+offentlige fremføringer av sitt verk, og til en utøvende artist til å
+kontrollere kopier av sine fremføringer.
+</p><p>
+Fildelingsnettverk kompliserer denne modellen ved å gjøre det mulig a spre
+innhold uten at utøveren har fått betalt. Men dette er naturligvis ikke alt
+et fildelingsnettverk gjør. Som jeg beskrev i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, så muliggjør de fire
+ulike former for deling:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
-purchasing CDs.
+Det er også noen som bruker delingsnettverk for å prøvelytte, mens de
+vurderer hva slags CDer de vil kjøpe.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
-</p></li></ol></div><p>
-Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
-avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
-with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
-the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
-actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
-weakened.
-</p><p>
-As I said in chapter 5, 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.
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6105464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6106000"></a><p>
+Enhver reform av loven må ha disse ulike bruksområdene i fokus. Den må
+unngå å belaste type-D-deling selv om den tar sikte på å fjerne type A.
+Hvor ivrig loven søker å fjerne type-A-deling bør videre være avhengig av
+størrelsen på type-B-deling. Som med videospillere, hvis nettoeffekten av
+deling ikke er spesielt skadelig, så er behovet for regulering betydelig
+svekket.noen reform av loven behov for å holde disse ulike bruksområder i
+fokus. den må unngå bebyrde type d selv om formålet er å eliminere type
+a. den iver etter med som loven sikte på å eliminere type a, videre bør
+avhenger omfanget av typen b. som med videospillere, hvis netto effekt av en
+deling er faktisk ikke svært skadelige, behovet for regulering er betydelig
+svekket.
+</p><p>
+Som jeg sa i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, er det kontroversielt om delingen forårsaker skade. Men
+i dette kapittelet vil jeg anta at skaden er reell. Jeg antar, med andre
+ord, at type-A-deling er betydelig større enn type-B, og er den dominerende
+bruken av delingsnettverk.
</p><p>
Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
</p><p>
-Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
-today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
-content. It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
-content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
-slow—we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
-1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
-down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
-across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
-idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
-</p><p>
-
-But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
-Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
-policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
-the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
-should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
-law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
-becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
-essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are—except maybe the
-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>
-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
-point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
-that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
-connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
-download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
-playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
-than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
-download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
-services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
-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 "free"
-content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.<sup>[<a name="id2749402" href="#ftn.id2749402" 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 "problem" 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 "solving" 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
-transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
-twenty-first-century technologies.
-</p><p>
-The answer begins with recognizing that there are different "problems" here
-to solve. Let's start with type D content—uncopyrighted content or
-copyrighted content that the artist wants shared. The "problem" 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 "problem." 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>
-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 "sharing" 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 "share" 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.
-</p><p>
-
-
-
-Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
-that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
-law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
-not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
-automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
-businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
-artists would benefit from this trade.
-</p><p>
-This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
-available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
-subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
-whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
-available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
-hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
-such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
-publisher.
-</p><p>
-The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
-because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
-for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
-flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
-radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
-content.
-</p><p>
-Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
+I dag blir er fildeling avhengighetsskapende. Om ti år vil det være det.
+Det er avhengighetsskapende i dag på grunn av at det er den enkleste måten å
+få tilgang til et bredt spekter av innhold. Det vil ikke være den enkleste
+måten å få tilgang til et bredt spekter av innhold om ti år. I dag er
+tilgang til internettet knotete og tregt—vi i USA er heldige hvis vi
+har en bredbåndstjeneste med 1,5 MB/s, og svært sjelden får vi tjenesten med
+den hastigheten både opp og ned. Selv om trådløs tilgang vokser, må de
+fleste av oss få tilgang via kabler. De fleste får kun tilgang via en
+maskin med et tastatur. Idéen om å alltid være tilkoblet internett er i
+hovedsak bare en idé.
+</p><p>
+
+Men det vil bli en realitet, og det betyr at måten vi får tilgang til
+internettet på i dag er en teknologi i endring. Beslutningstakere bør ikke
+lage regler basert på teknologi i endring. De bør lage regler basert på
+hvor teknologien er på vei. Spørsmålet bør ikke være om hvordan loven skal
+regulere delingen slik verden er nå. Spørsmålet bør være, hva slags lov vil
+vi trenge når nettverket blir det nettverket helt klart er på vei mot. Det
+nettverket er et hvor enhver maskin som bruker strøm i essensen er på
+nettet. Uansett hvor du er—muligens med unntak av i ørkenen og
+fjerntliggende fjellpartier—kan du umiddelbart bli koblet til
+internettet. Forestill deg internettet så allstedsnærværende som den beste
+mobiltelefontjenesten, hvor du er tilkoblet med et enkelt trykk på en
+bryter.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6110480"></a><p>
+I den verden vil det være ekstremt enkelt å koble seg til en tjeneste som
+gir deg direkte tilgang til innhold—slik som internett-radio, innhold
+som strømmes til brukeren når brukeren ønsker det. Her er dermed det
+kritiske poenget: Når det er <span class="emphasis"><em>ekstremt</em></span> enkelt å koble
+seg til tjenester som gir tilgang til innhold, sa vil det være
+<span class="emphasis"><em>enklere</em></span> å koble seg til tjenester som gir deg tilgang
+til innhold enn det vil være å laste ned og lagre innhold <span class="emphasis"><em>på de
+mange enhetene som du vil ha for å vise frem innhold</em></span>. Det vil
+med andre ord være enklere å abonnere enn det vil være å være
+databaseadministrator, hvilket enhver er i en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">last ned og
+del</span>»</span>-verden som Napster-lignende teknologier i essensen er.
+Innholdstjenester vil konkurrere med innholdsdeling, selv om tjenestene
+krever penger for innholdet de gir tilgang til. Allerede tilbyr
+mobiltelefontjenester i Japan musikk (mot et gebyr) strømmet via
+mobiltelefoner (forbedret med plugger for øretelefoner). Japanerne betaler
+for dette innholdet selv om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span> innhold er tilgjengelig i
+form av MP3er via nettet.<sup>[<a name="idp6117208" href="#ftn.idp6117208" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
+
+</p><p>
+
+Dette poenget om fremtiden er med å foreslå et perspektiv om nåtiden: Det er
+ettertrykkelig midlertidig. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Problemet</span>»</span> med fildeling—i
+den grad det er et reelt problem—er et problem som mer og mer vil
+forsvinne etter hvert som det blir enklere å koble seg på internettet. Og
+dermed er det en stor feil for beslutningstakere i dag å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">løse</span>»</span>
+dette problem basert på en teknologi som vil være borte i morgen.
+Spørsmålet bør ikke være hvordan regulere internettet for å fjerne fildeling
+(nettet vil utvikle seg slik at det problemet blir borte). Spørsmålet bør i
+stedet være hvordan en sikrer at kunstnere får betalt, gjennom denne
+overgangen fra forretningsmodellene i det tjuende århundre og til
+teknologiene i det tjueførste århundre.
+</p><p>
+Svaret begynner med å erkjenne at det er ulike <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problemer</span>»</span> å
+løse her. La oss starte med type-D-innhold—ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet
+innhold eller opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold som kunstneren ønsker å få
+delt. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Problemet</span>»</span> med dette innholdet er å sikre at teknologien
+som muliggjør denne type deling ikke blir gjort ulovlig. Tenk på det slik:
+telefonbokser kan uten tvil brukes til å levere krav om løsepenger. Men det
+er mange som trenger å bruke telefonbokser som ikke har noe med løsepenger å
+gjøre. Det ville være galt å forby telefonbokser for å eliminere
+kidnapping.
+</p><p>
+Type-C-innhold reiser et annet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span>. Dette er innhold som
+var publisert, en gang i tiden, og ikke lenger er tilgjengelig. Det kan
+være utilgjengelig fordi kunstneren ikke lenger er verdifull nok for
+plateselskapet han har signert med til at de vil formidle hans verker.
+Eller det kan være utilgjengelig fordi verket er glemt. Uansett bør målet
+til loven være å muliggjøre tilgang til dette innholdet, ideelt sett på en
+måte som gir noe tilbake til kunstneren.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6123536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6124056"></a><p>
+Igjen, her er modellen bruktbokhandelen. Etter at en bok er utsolgt fra
+forlaget, så kan den fortsatt være tilgjengelig fra biblioteker og
+bruktbokhandler. Men biblioteker og bruktbokhandler betaler ikke
+opphavsrettseieren når noen leser eller kjøper en bok som er utsolgt fra
+forlaget. Dette gir absolutt mening, selvfølgelig, siden ethvert annet
+system ville være så tungvindt at det ville gjøre det umulig for
+bruktbokhandler å eksistere. Men fra forfatterens synsvinkel er denne
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">delingen</span>»</span> av hans innhold uten at han får kompensasjon ikke
+helt ideell.
+</p><p>
+Modellen for bruktbokhandler antyder at loven ganske enkelt kan anse
+utsolgt-fra-forlaget-musikk for fritt vilt. Hvis utgiveren ikke gjør
+utgaver av musikken tilgjengelig for salg, så ville kommersielle og
+ikke-kommersielle tilbydere stå fritt, under denne regelen, til å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dele</span>»</span> det innholdet, selv om delingen involverte å lage en
+kopi. Kopien her ville være teknisk detalj for å for gjennomføre handelen.
+I en sammenheng der kommersiell publisering er avsluttet, så burde friheten
+til å handle med musikk være lik den som gjelder for bøker.
+</p><p>
+
+
+
+Alternativt kan loven opprette en lovbestemt lisens som ville sørge for at
+kunstnere får noe fra handelen med deres verk. For eksempel, hvis loven
+satte en lav lovbestemt sats for kommersiell deling av innhold som ikke ble
+tilbudt for salg fra en kommersiell utgiver, og hvis denne raten automatisk
+ble overført til en tiltrodd tredjepart til fordel for kunstneren, så kunne
+selskaper utvikle seg rundt idéen om handel med dette innholdet mens
+kunstneren ville ha fordel av denne handelen.
+</p><p>
+Dette systemet ville også skape et insentiv for utgivere å la verk forbli
+kommersielt tilgjengelig. Verk som er kommersielt tilgjengelig ville ikke
+bli underlagt denne lisensen. Dermed kan utgiverne beskytte retten til å ta
+betalt hvilket som helst beløp for innhold hvis de holdt det kommersielt
+tilgjengelig. Men hvis de ikke holdt det tilgjengelig, og i stedet var det
+harddiskene til tilhengere rundt om kring i verden som holdt det i live, da
+burde enhver lisensbetaling for slik kopiering være mye mindre enn det en
+vanligvis ville skylle en kommersiell utgiver.
+</p><p>
+De vanskelige tilfellene er innhold av type A og B. Og igjen, disse
+tilfellene er kun vanskelig fordi utstrekningen av problemet vil endre seg
+over tid, etter hvert som teknologier for å få tilgang til innhold endrer
+seg. Lovens løsning bør derfor være like fleksibelt som problemet er, og
+forstå at vi er midt i en radikal endring i teknologi for levering og
+tilgang til innhold.
+</p><p>
+Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig underlig for begge
sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
seg om.
</p><p>
-Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
-the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet) has harmed a
-set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
-then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
-technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
-technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
-has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
-industry.
+Når retorikken om ukrenkeligheten til eiendom er fjernet, er de
+grunnleggende påstanden til innholdsindustrien denne: En ny teknologi
+(internettet) har skadet et sett med rettigheter som sikrer opphavsretten.
+Hvis disse rettighetene skal bli beskyttet, så bør innholdsindustrien
+kompenseres for denne skaden. På samme måte som tobakksteknologien skadet
+helsen til millioner av amerikanere, eller aspestteknologien forårsaket
+alvorlig sykdom hos tusenvis av gruvearbeidere, så har den digitale
+nettverksteknologien skadet interessene til innholdsindustrien.
</p><p>
det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
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="id2749564" href="#ftn.id2749564" 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
-evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
-the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems 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>
-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
-is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
-copyright system. I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
-of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
-could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
-a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
-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.
-</p><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 "semiotic democracy" 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><p>
-No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of "harm" 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 "free" 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>
-This competition has already occurred against the background of "free" 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 "competing with free." 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
-"first class" seats, and meals served while you watch a movie—as they
-struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with "free."
-</p><p>
-Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme å sikre at kunstnere ikke
-taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpromisestokeepfisher"></a><p>
+Idéen er basert på et forslag lansert av jusprofessor William Fisher ved
+Harvard.<sup>[<a name="idp6133864" href="#ftn.idp6133864" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup> Fisher foreslår en veldig lur
+måte rundt den pågående stillingskrigen på internettet. I følge hans plan
+ville alt innhold som kan sendes digitalt (1) være markert med et digitalt
+vannmerke (ikke bekymre deg over hvor enkelt det ville være å unngå disse
+merkene, som du vil se er det ikke noe insentiv for å unngå dem). Når
+innholdet er merket, så ville entreprenører utvikle (2) systemer for å
+registrere hvor mange enheter av hvert innhold som ble distribuert. På
+grunnlag av disse tallene ville så (3) kunstnerne bli
+kompensert. Kompensasjonen kunne bli finansiert med (4) en passende skatt.
+</p><p>
+Forslaget til Fisher er grundig og omfattende. Det reiser en million
+spørsmål, de fleste av dem godt besvart i hans kommende bok,
+<em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. Endringene jeg vil gjøre er
+relativt enkle: Fisher ser for seg at hans forslag erstatter det
+eksisterende opphavsrettssystemet. Jeg ser for meg at det vil utfylle det
+eksisterende systemet. Målet med forslaget vil være å gjøre det enklere å
+gi kompensasjon i den grad skade kan påvises. Denne kompensasjonen ville
+være midlertidig, med målsetning om å gjøre overgangen lettere mellom to
+regimer. Og det ville kreve fornying etter en periode pa noen år. Hvis det
+fortsatt gir mening å forenkle gratis utveksling av innhold gjennom et
+skattesystem, så kan det videreføres. Hvis denne form for beskyttelse ikke
+lenger er nødvendig, så kan systemet foldes inn i det gamle systemet for å
+kontrollere tilgang.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6148000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6148720"></a><p>
+
+Fisher ville steile over idéen om å tillate systemet til å foldes vekk.
+Hans mål er ikke bare å sikre at kunstnerne blir betalt, men også å sikre at
+systemet støtter den videste rekken av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">*semiotic democracy*</span>»</span>
+som mulig. Men målet om *semiotic democracy* kan oppfylles hvis de andre
+endringer jeg beskriver kommer på plass—spesielt begrensninger på
+avledet bruk. Et system som ganske enkelt tar imot betaling for tilgang vil
+ikke belaste *semiotic democracy* veldig hvis det var få begrensninger på
+hva en får lov til å gjøre med selve innholdet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6150208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6151432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6151784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6152200"></a><p>
+Uten tvil vil det være vanskelig å måle nøyaktig <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skaden</span>»</span> på en
+industri. Men vanskeligheten i å beregne dette vil veies opp av fordelen
+ved å tilrettelegge for nyskapning. Dette bakgrunnssystemet for å kompensere
+ville heller ikke trenge å forstyrre nyskapende forslag som Apples
+MusicStore. Som eksperter forutså da Apple lanserte sin MusicStore, så kan
+den slå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span> ved å være enklere enn det gratis er. Dette
+har vist seg å være riktig: Apple har solgt millioner av sanger til selv den
+veldig høye prisen 99 cent pr. sang (til 99 cent er kostnaden tilsvarende
+prisen pr. sang på CD, selv om plateselskapene ikke må betale noen av
+kostnadene knyttet til Cd-produksjon). Apples lansering ble møtt av Real
+Networks, som tilbød musikk til kun 79 cent pr. sang. Og uten tvil vil det
+bli mye konkurranse rundt å tilby og å selge musikk på nettet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6154728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6155136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6155704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6156136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6156696"></a><p>
+Denne konkurransen er allerede på plass mot bakgrunnen med
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span> musikk fra p2p-systemer. Slik selgerne av kabel-TV
+har visst i tredve år, og de som selger vann på plaske enda lengre, så er
+det slett ikke umulig over det å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">konkurrere med gratis</span>»</span>.
+Faktisk til konkurransen om ikke annet inspirere til å tilby nye og bedre
+produkter. Det er nøyaktig det et konkurransedyktig marked skulle handle
+om. Dermed har en i Singapore, hvor piratkopiering er utbredt, ofte
+luksuriøse kinosaler—med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">førsteklasses</span>»</span> seter, og
+måltider servert mens du ser på en film—mens de kjemper og lykkes i å
+finne en måte a konkurrere med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span>.
+</p><p>
+Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
+ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling. Det ville
inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører—som ville ha
retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
</p></li></ol></div><p>
-Men hva om "piratvirksomheten" ikke forsvinner? Hva om det finnes et
-konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad, men et
-signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å "ta" innhold uten å betale?
-Burde loven gjøre noe da?
+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
ødelegge internettet. Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
som internettet er.
-</p></div><div class="sect
2" title="5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="sect
ion" title="16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
-tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
+tror på åndsverksloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
jeg elsker å leve opp til.
</p><p>
en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
synet ødelegge loven.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6170224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6170600"></a><p>
Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene. Jeg er angrepet som en
-"radikal" 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="id2749939" href="#ftn.id2749939" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
+<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="idp6172488" href="#ftn.idp6172488" 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="id2749972" href="#ftn.id2749972" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
+lav.<sup>[<a name="idp6174808" href="#ftn.idp6174808" 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="idp6180880"></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: "vil det bidra positivt?". Når de blir utfordret om det
-utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, "Hvorfor ikke?"
+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: "Hvorfor?". 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 name="ftn.id2747993" href="#id2747993" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
+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.idp5961224" href="#idp5961224" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, "Fair Information Practices and the
-Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get)," <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 name="ftn.id2748422" href="#id2748422" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
-
+Se for eksempel 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, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (beskriver eksempler
+der teknologi definerer personvernregler). Se også Jeffrey Rosen,
+<em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
+Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (kartlegger avveininger
+mellom teknologi og personvern).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6024728" href="#idp6024728" 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 name="ftn.id2748608" href="#id2748608" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
+Culture Wars</em> (2003), produsert av Jed Horovitz, regissert av
+
Greg Hittelman, en produksjon av Fiat Lucre, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6040224" href="#idp6040224" 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 name="ftn.id2748731" href="#id2748731" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
+Forslaget jeg fremmmer her ville kun gjelde for amerikanske verk. Jeg tror
+naturligvis at det ville være en fordel om samme ide ble adoptert også av
+andre land.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6052592" href="#idp6052592" 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 name="ftn.id2748853" href="#id2748853" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
+En kompliserende faktor er avledede verker, og den har jeg ikke løst her.
+Etter mitt syn skaper loven rundt avledede verker et mer komplisert system
+enn det som kan rettferdiggjøres ut fra de marginale insentivene dette gir.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6064680" href="#idp6064680" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
-"A Radical Rethink," <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 name="ftn.id2748942" href="#id2748942" 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.idp6073272" href="#idp6073272" 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 name="ftn.id2749061" href="#id2749061" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6084936" href="#idp6084936" 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 name="ftn.id2749085" href="#id2749085" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6086848" href="#idp6086848" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749158" href="#id2749158" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6093592" href="#idp6093592" 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="id2748005"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749402" href="#id2749402" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
-
-
-For eksempel, se, "Music Media Watch," 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 name="ftn.id2749564" href="#id2749564" 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, "Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy to
-Allow Free P2P File Sharing," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other proposals,
-see Lawrence Lessig, "Who's Holding Back Broadband?" <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 #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,
-"Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly," <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,
-"Getting Copyright Right," IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>; Declan
-McCullagh, "Verizon's Copyright Campaign," 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="id2749664"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2749672"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749939" href="#id2749939" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Lawrence Lessig, "Copyright's First Amendment" (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 name="ftn.id2749972" href="#id2749972" 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
+187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5962144"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6117208" href="#idp6117208" 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.idp6133864" href="#idp6133864" 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 kompensasjon 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. 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="idp6143088"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6143504"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6143928"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6144352"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp6172488" href="#idp6172488" 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.idp6174808" href="#idp6174808" 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
+forutsa 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, "Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?" 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="id2749949"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 8. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 8. 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="idp6173400"></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 9. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Kapittel 9. 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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6190016"></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
og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt. Blant de som har svart med
svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
-som hadde spesifikke ideer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på. De
+som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på. De
inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
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, "Wink,"
-Roger Wood, "Ximmbo da Jazz," 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.)
+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
+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.)
</p><p>
Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
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></body></html>
+</p></div><div class="index" title="Register"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="idp6197976"></a>Register</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symboler</h3><dl><dt>11. september 2001, terrorangrep den, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Afrika, medisinering for HIV-pasienter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>AIDS-medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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 i Eventyrland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>allemannseie (public domain)</dt><dd><dl><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>bibliotek av verker avledet fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>definert, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>ebok-begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>lisens-systemet for å gjenoppbygging av, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>offentlige prosjekter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>tilgangsavgifter for materiale i, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>tradisjonell frist for konvertering til, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>åndsverkslov</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Engelsk, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Japansk, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>kreativitet hindret av, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte lisenser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>nyskapning hemmet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om musikkinnspillinger, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>på gjenpublisering vs. endring av opprinnelig verk, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>rimelig bruk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>som beskyttelse for skapere, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>utviklingen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></dd><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 medisin, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</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>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«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>automatiske piano, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>avledede verker</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>piratvirksomhet vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>Berlinvedtaket (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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>beskyttelse av kunstnere vs. forretningsinteresser, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>biler, MP3-lydsystem i, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>biomedisinsk forskning, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>, <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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>bruktsalg av, <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>Engelsk åndsverkslov 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>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <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>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><dt>utsolgt fra forlaget, <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></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>Britiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</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">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMer, filmklipp brukt i, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>CDer</dt><dd><dl><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettsmerking av, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Merking</a></dt><dt>preferanse data på, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>priser på, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>salgsnivå for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>utenlands piratvirksomhet mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>copyleft-lisenser, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>i farmasøytisk industri, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><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>coverlåter, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</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>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</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>demokrati</dt><dd><dl><dt>i teknologier for å uttrykke seg, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>offentlig diskusjon i, <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></dl></dd><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>digitale kamera, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>dokumentarfilm, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>doujinshi-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</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="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>føydalsystem for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp4370800">«Eiendom»</a></dt><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>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</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>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>England, åndsverkslov utviklet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>epost, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</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>farmasøytiske patenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>om FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmer</dt><dd><dl><dt>animerte, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>arkiv av, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>rimelig bruk av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmindustri</dt><dd><dl><dt>luksuskinoer mot video-piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formaliteter, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Første grunnlovstillegg, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</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 (filmselskap), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>føydalsystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>fri kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt>avledede verker basert på, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <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> tillatelseskultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>fri programvare/åpen kildekode-programvare (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <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>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><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>generiske medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Globalt posisjoneringssystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grimm-eventyr, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Grunnloven i USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Første tillegg til, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt></dl></dd></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>Helan og Halvan-filmene, <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>, <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-behandlinger, <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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Høyesterett, USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>om luftrom mot landrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Overhuset, det britiske mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tilgang til vurderinger fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«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>immaterielle rettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>av legemiddelpatenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>informasjonskapsler, internett, <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><dd><dl><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>internasjonal lov, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogger om, <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>bøker på, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt> effektiv innholdsdistribusjon på, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>node-generert rangeringer av, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>nyhetsinnslag på, <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>offentlig diskusjon gjennomført på, <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>opprinnelige frie egenskaper ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></dt><dt>personvernbeskyttelse på, <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>radio på, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>søkemotorer brukt på, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>utviklingen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Exporer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Internett-arkivet, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</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>Japanske tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp4370800">«Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>journalistikk, <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>juridisk system, advokatkostnader i, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>jurysystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <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></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>kabel-TV, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>kamerateknologi, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>kassettopptak, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <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>Kodak-kamera, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>komponister, opphavsrettsbeskyttelser for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Kongressen i USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>om åndsverkslover, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om innspillingenindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>kreativ eiendel</dt><dd><dl><dt>andre eiendomsretter vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien om, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kreativitet</dt><dd><dl><dt>juridiske begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>ved å endre tidligere verker, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt>kommersiell vs. ikke-kommersiell, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landbruk, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>landbrukspatenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><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>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>legers feilbehandlingsanklager mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>i internasjonal debatt om immateriell eiendom, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <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>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiveringsfunksjon for, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>av allemannseid litteratur, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>personvernrettigheter i bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>tidsskrifter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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 lisenser, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>loven</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>databaser med saksrapporter om, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</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>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>makt, konsentrasjon av, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«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="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</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>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogg-press på, <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>commercial imperatives of, <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>eierskapskonsentrasjon i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>mediekompetanse, <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>medisiner</dt><dd><dl><dt>farmasøytisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>internasjonal piratkopiering av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>konkurransemessige strategier for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>nettverksfilsystemet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>om fri programvare, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Windows-operativsystemet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>WIPO-møte motarbeidet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Mikke Mus, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Millar mot taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><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>monopol, opphavsrett som, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <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>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>musikkpublisering, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville sangforfatterforening, <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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Nei til Elektronisk Tyveri(NET)-loven (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NET(Nei til Elektronisk Tyveri)-loven (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</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>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiver av, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>noteark, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>nyhetsdekning, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>Offentlige Vitenskapsbiblioteket, det (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</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>opphavsrett</dt><dd><dl><dt>bruksbegrensninger knyttet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>for evig, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>merking av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>som smal monopolrett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>varighet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><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><dt>Overhuset, det britiske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallellimport, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>patenter</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>i allemannseie (public domain), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>om legemidler, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer(p2p)-fildeling</dt><dd><dl><dt>effektiviteten til, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>personvernrettigheter, <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>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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>piratvirksomhet</dt><dd><dl><dt>avledede verk vas., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>i Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>plateindustrien</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte lisenssystemer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>radiokringkasting og, <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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>søksmål om opphavsrettbrudd fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>PLoS (Offentlige Vitenskapsbiblioteket, det), <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>politisk diskusjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornografi, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>proprietær kode, <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>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>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM-spektrum for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>rap-musikk, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om radio-avgifter på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>skremselstaktikker til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulering</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>økte straffer ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>reklameinnslag, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</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><dd><dl><dt>datanettverksøkemotor ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>rimelig bruk, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>i dokumentarfilm, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>Romeo og Julie (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>sedvanerett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Senatet i USA, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Skotske utgivere, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>søkemotorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>søksmål om krenkelse av opphavsrett</dt><dd><dl><dt>distribusjon-teknologi mål for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>i plateindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>kommersiell kreativitet som hovedformål for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader for, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>mot student-fildeling, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>overdrevne påstander om, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Høyesteretts utfordring av, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Sør-Afrika, Republikken, farmasøytiske import til, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</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>, <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 Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</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>Storbritannia</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>offentlig kreativt arkiv i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>tegneserier, japanske, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>teknologi</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>televisjon</dt><dd><dl><dt>kabel-TV mot kringkasting, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>markedsføring på, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>tillatelser</dt><dd><dl><dt>fotografering som ikke trenger, <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></dl></dd><dt>tillatelseskultur</dt><dd><dl><dt> fri kultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>tvangslisens, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Tysk åndsverkslov, <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">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>universitetdatanettverk, p2p-fildeling på, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>USAs handelrepresentant (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>utdanning</dt><dd><dl><dt>fikling som metode for, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>i mediekompetanse, <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></dl></dd><dt>uttrykke seg, teknologier for å</dt><dd><dl><dt>demokratisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>mediekompetanse og, <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></dl></dd><dt>utviklingsland, utenlandske patentkostnader i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> om kreative eiendomsrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>valg, <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>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>veteranpensjoner, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>vitenskapelige tidsskrifter, <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>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Web-logger (blogger), <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>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>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</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 Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp3714144">«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