<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxcabletv2' class='endofrange'/>
-<indexterm><primary>Betamax</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm
id='idxbetamax' class='startofrange'><primary>Betamax</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm id='idxcassettevcrs1' class='startofrange'><primary>cassette recording</primary><secondary>VCRs</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major
of Jack Valenti).
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxbetamax' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme
Court. In the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
owned by separate media companies. Now, the media is increasingly
owned by only a few companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC
announced in June 2003, most expect that within a few years, we will
-live in a world where just three companies control more than percent
+live in a world where just three companies control more than 85 percent
of the media.
</para>
<para>
framers sought to protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well
protected— by the market.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Fallows, James</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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,
-<indexterm><primary>Fallows, James</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
these issues.
</para>
<indexterm id='idxadvertising3' class='startofrange'><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcommercials' class='startofrange'><primary>commercials</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxtelevisionadvertisingon' class='startofrange'><primary>television</primary><secondary>advertising on</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched
a media campaign as part of the <quote>war on drugs.</quote> The campaign produced
the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your
message will be heard then?
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>First Amendment to</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>First Amendment</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Supreme Court, U.S.</primary><secondary>on television advertising bans</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>television</primary><secondary>controversy avoided by</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
<quote>controversial</quote> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
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, <quote>On the Issue of
-an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV Networks,</quote> <citetitle>New
-York Times</citetitle>, 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, <quote>Ad
-Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
-Radio,</quote> <citetitle>Yale Law and Policy Review</citetitle> 6 (1988): 449–79, and for a
-more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the courts, see
-<citetitle>Radio-Television News Directors Association</citetitle> v. <citetitle>FCC</citetitle>, 184 F. 3d 872
+limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, <quote>On the
+Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV
+Networks,</quote> <citetitle>New York Times</citetitle>, 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, <quote>Ad Hoc Access:
+The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
+Radio,</quote> <citetitle>Yale Law and Policy Review</citetitle> 6
+(1988): 449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of
+the FCC and the courts, see <citetitle>Radio-Television News Directors
+Association</citetitle> v. <citetitle>FCC</citetitle>, 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, <quote>Antidiesel Group Fuming
-After Muni Rejects Ad,</quote> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #32</ulink>. The ground
-was that the criticism was <quote>too controversial.</quote>
+diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, <quote>Antidiesel Group
+Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad,</quote> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003,
+available at <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link
+#32</ulink>. The ground was that the criticism was <quote>too
+controversial.</quote>
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcommercials' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxtelevisionadvertisingon' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
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
competition. Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this
kind of competition. The effect is to produce an overregulated
culture, just as the effect of too much control in the market is to
-produce an overregulatedregulated market.
+produce an overregulated-regulated market.
</para>
<para>
The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is
it gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free
<!-- PAGE BREAK 239 -->
-Software Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux
+Software Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/Linux
possible). They included a powerful brief about the costs of
uncertainty by Intel. There were two law professors' briefs, one by
copyright scholars and one by First Amendment scholars. There was an
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff