-<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific American's 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="n
b" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
-og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">
Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id3087269"></a><p>
+<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific American's 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="n
o" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
+og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">
Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Legal Notice"><a name="id2900550"></a><p>
<span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
</p><p>
Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensiert med en
The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
</p><p>
Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontpublisher"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
-The Penguin Press, New York
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontbookinfo"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
-Fri Kultur
-</p><p>
-Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
-og kontrollere kreativiteten
-</p><p>
-Lawrence Lessig
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3040076"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2870374"></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: Omformer
e</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id3125929">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id3039943"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
+</p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformer
ne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2960434">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Colophon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2870226"></a>Colophon</h2><p>
THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street
New York, New York
</p><p>
2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with
permission.
</p><p>
-Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, “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="Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figure 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 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, “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="Figure 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figure 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>
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
3039548"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2870062"></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
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="id3057600" href="#ftn.id3057600" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
+programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2870717" href="#ftn.id2870717" 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
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
3057680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057687"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
xpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870810"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870823"></a><p>
Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
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:
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3057716"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut? Ikke for meg. Denne konsentrasjonen av
makt—politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt—bør være
bannlyst av konservative. Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
-og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id3057740" href="#ftn.id3057740" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2870869" href="#ftn.id2870869" 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="id2870897"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kun</span>»</span> er et avledet verk.
</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.id3057600" href="#id3057600" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
-Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870717" href="#id2870717" 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 id="ftn.id3057740" href="#id3057740" 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="id3057750"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtraffic"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownership"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxproprigtair"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3096239"></a><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.id2870869" href="#id2870869" 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="id2870880"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Chapter 0. 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 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><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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3096273" href="#ftn.id3096273" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
+bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2926959" href="#ftn.id2926959" 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="id2926977"></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
3096293"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3096318"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2926988"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927013"></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
strakk seg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>»</span> så hadde regjeringen
trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
dette.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3096344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3096351"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2927039"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927045"></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
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="id3096402" href="#ftn.id3096402" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2927120" href="#ftn.id2927120" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2927175"></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
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
3096488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3096495"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3096502"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2927219"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927226"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927233"></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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id3096552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3096563"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3096573"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwin"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2927279"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927291"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927302"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927313"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927351"></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
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="id3096617"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3096628"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3096634"></a>
+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
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="id3096709" href="#ftn.id3096709" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2927460" href="#ftn.id2927460" 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="id2927514"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>. Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
-oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id3096754"></a>
+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="id3096646" href="#ftn.id3096646" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idx
lessing"></a><p>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2927396" href="#ftn.id2927396" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idx
fmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927577"></a><p>
Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3096814"></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
begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
-makt.<sup>[<a name="id3096841" href="#ftn.id3096841" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+makt.<sup>[<a name="id2927626" href="#ftn.id2927626" 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="id3096855" href="#ftn.id3096855" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3096898"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3096905"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2927656" href="#ftn.id2927656" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2927695"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927704"></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="id2927723"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927731"></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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3096927"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2927742"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927770"></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="id3096995" href="#ftn.id3096995" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
-problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2927802"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927810"></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="id2927851" href="#ftn.id2927851" 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="id2927907"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927915"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2927936"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur. Da Noah
Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Reader</span>»</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
-så var det kommersiell kultur. <a class="indexterm" name="id3038754"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3038763"></a>
+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
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>
+</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="id3038805" href="#ftn.id3038805" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2928026" href="#ftn.id2928026" 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="id2928063"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928072"></a><p>
Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
-fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id3038848" href="#ftn.id3038848" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
+fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2928085" href="#ftn.id2928085" 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="id2928101"></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="id2928154"></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="id2928183"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928193"></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
<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="id3097453" href="#ftn.id3097453" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2928264" href="#ftn.id2928264" 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.
legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2928329"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928345"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928352"></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="id3097532" href="#ftn.id3097532" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2928373" href="#ftn.id2928373" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
skaperne mot privat kontroll. Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
tradisjonen til velgjørere. I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
internett-teknologiene. Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
til denne krigen. Vi må finne en løsning snart.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3097619"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3097624"></a><p>
-Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke like håndfast
-som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så langt mistet
-livet. Likevel er idéene rundt denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> like
-åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres
-bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav
-som eierne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span> nå hevder. De fleste
-av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som åpenbare. Og dermed
-protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper inn i denne
-eiendomsretten. Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at de nye
-teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tar seg til rette</span>»</span> mot legitime
-krav til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Det er like klart for oss som det var
-for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen
-manns eiendom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3097676"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3097682"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3097688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2928462"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928468"></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="id
2928536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928542"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928549"></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="id2928572"></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.
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
3097787"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3097793"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2928654"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928660"></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
eiendom. Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
dyptgripende.
-</p><p>
-Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>. Mitt mål med
-denne bokens neste to deler er å utforske disse to idéene.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2928692"></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
deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon—en konsekvens
for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3096273" href="#id3096273" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2926959" href="#id2926959" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3096402" href="#id3096402" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2927120" href="#id2927120" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby. Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
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="id3096441"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3096437"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3096709" href="#id3096709" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
+Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2927159"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2927155"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2927460" href="#id2927460" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3096646" href="#id3096646" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2927396" href="#id2927396" 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.id3096841" href="#id3096841" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3096855" href="#id3096855" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2927626" href="#id2927626" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2927656" href="#id2927656" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3096995" href="#id3096995" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2927851" href="#id2927851" 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.id3038805" href="#id3038805" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2928026" href="#id2928026" 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
opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to
Privacy</span>»</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3096625"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038848" href="#id3038848" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2927341"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2928085" href="#id2928085" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
-Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id3038856"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3097453" href="#id3097453" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2928093"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2928264" href="#id2928264" 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.id3097532" href="#id3097532" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2928373" href="#id2928373" 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="id3097543"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Del I. «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Piratvirksomhet»"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
-Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
-en krig mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. De presise konturene av dette
-konseptet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp,
-men bildet av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive. Som Lord Mansfield skrev
-i en sak som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere
-noteark,
+<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2928384"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Part I. «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part 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="id2928794"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2928822"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Helt siden</strong></span> loven begynte å regulere
+kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet
+av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive. Som Lord Mansfield skrev i en sak
+som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere noteark,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
-etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id3097957" href="#ftn.id3097957" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3097972"></a></blockquote></div><p>
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2928864" href="#ftn.id2928864" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2928878"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2928890"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krig</span>»</span> mot
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
overskuddet.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2928958"></a><p>
Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> mot denne
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span>. En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
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
3098094"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2929036"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2929042"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2929048"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
-rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id3098110" href="#ftn.id3098110" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
+rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2929094" href="#ftn.id2929094" 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="id3098133" href="#ftn.id3098133" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
+leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2929117" href="#ftn.id2929117" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettighet</span>»</span>—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3098177"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2929162"></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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter. It har aldri stått rot
i vårt lovverk.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2929193"></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="id2929248"></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
ved å drive forretning.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3098234"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3098240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2929271"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2929295"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2929301"></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
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="id3098279" href="#ftn.id3098279" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
+av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2929324" href="#ftn.id2929324" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
kreative klassen.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2929388"></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 <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.id3097957" href="#id3097957" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2928864" href="#id2928864" 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.id3098110" href="#id3098110" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2929094" href="#id2929094" 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.id3098133" href="#id3098133" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2929117" href="#id2929117" 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="id3098158"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3098279" href="#id3098279" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
+Globe</em>, 24. november 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2929143"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2929324" href="#id2929324" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under. Jeg er helt
klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
-vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id3098321"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3098330"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><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>
+vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2929367"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2929375"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Chapter 1. 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
Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse. Jeg trodde de
tullet med meg. Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt. Det
-var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id3098459" href="#ftn.id3098459" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><p>
+var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2929571" href="#ftn.id2929571" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2929585"></a><p>
Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
-bra.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3098486"></a>
+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="id2929623"></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>
+</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="id3098557" href="#ftn.id3098557" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
+Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2929723" href="#ftn.id2929723" 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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2929788"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2929796"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2929804"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2929813"></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="id3098630" href="#ftn.id3098630" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
+ham.<sup>[<a name="id2929853" href="#ftn.id2929853" 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 eventyrene til brødrene Grimm. Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3098761"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2929994"></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.
litt misvisende. Det er mer presist <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>—en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
-</p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2930025"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930034"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930042"></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="id3098787" href="#ftn.id3098787" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2930020" href="#ftn.id2930020" 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
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2930156"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930177"></a><p>
Dette er slik det alltid har vært—inntil ganske nylig. For
mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
bygge på uten tillatelse. Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
-</p><p>
-Walt Disney hadde selvfølgelig ikke monopol på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
-Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>. Det har heller ikke USA. Normen med fri kultur
-har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og
-svært universell.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2930205"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930213"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930221"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930229"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930237"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930247"></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
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>
+</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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>»</span>. Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
som ekte doujinshi. Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
-</p><p>
+</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
kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
doujinshi-markedet. Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
for loven.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930497"></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 opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
tillatelse fra den opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig. Det er et
brudd på opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et
avledet verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2930543"></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
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="id3099083" href="#ftn.id3099083" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3099109"></a><p>
+dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2930570" href="#ftn.id2930570" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2930596"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930604"></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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
gamle.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3099142"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2930637"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930658"></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="id3099168" href="#ftn.id3099168" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2930692" href="#ftn.id2930692" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2930721"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930729"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930737"></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
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2930768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930776"></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>,
noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
-eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
+eller skade dem?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2930820"></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
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="id3099280" href="#ftn.id3099280" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2930862" href="#ftn.id2930862" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2930921"></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
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><p>
+</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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2930998"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931019"></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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931074"></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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931099"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931107"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931115"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931123"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931131"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931139"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931148"></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
ta—frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
alle samfunn.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931194"></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
Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre. Vår var en fri
kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3098459" href="#id3098459" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931266"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2929571" href="#id2929571" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34–35.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3098557" href="#id3098557" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2929723" href="#id2929723" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
<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.id3098630" href="#id3098630" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2929853" href="#id2929853" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3098787" href="#id3098787" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2930020" href="#id2930020" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
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.id3099083" href="#id3099083" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2930570" href="#id2930570" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3099168" href="#id3099168" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2930692" href="#id2930692" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
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.id3099280" href="#id3099280" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
-
-Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
-opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se
-også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
-Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2930862" href="#id2930862" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2930865"></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.<a class="indexterm" name="id3099302"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
-I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
-produsere det vi ville kalle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>. Rimelig nok ble de
-kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>»</span>. Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
+rettighetene er svært forskjellige.
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 2. Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratech"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931311"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>I 1839</strong></span> fant Louis Daguerre opp den første
+praktiske teknologien for å produsere det vi ville kalle
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>. Rimelig nok ble de kalt
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>»</span>. Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
velstående amatører. (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
-ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.) <a class="indexterm" name="id3099561"></a>
-</p><p>
+ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931346"></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
1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det. Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
-fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id3099596"></a>
+fleste amatører.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931409"></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="id3099645" href="#ftn.id3099645" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
-<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id3099659"></a>
+resten.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2931427" href="#ftn.id2931427" 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
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="id3096888" href="#ftn.id3096888" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
+et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2927637" href="#ftn.id2927637" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
For $25 kunne alle ta bilder. Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
om dagen. Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
-prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3099724" href="#ftn.id3099724" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
-samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3099734" href="#ftn.id3099734" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3099743"></a><p>
+prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2931500" href="#ftn.id2931500" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
+samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2931510" href="#ftn.id2931510" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2931519"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931527"></a><p>
Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
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="id3099675" href="#ftn.id3099675" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
+laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2931451" href="#ftn.id2931451" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
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 ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
-trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id3099827" href="#ftn.id3099827" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og trykke
+hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2931611" href="#ftn.id2931611" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></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
tok målets sjel. På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3099462"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2931206"></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="id3099896" href="#ftn.id3099896" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
+annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2931691" href="#ftn.id2931691" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931731"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931739"></a><p>
Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene. Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre. I stedet
ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
begrensninger enn resten av oss. Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
-fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id3099951" href="#ftn.id3099951" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
+fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2931760" href="#ftn.id2931760" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
</p><p>
Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
hadde slått ut den andre veien. Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
av godkjenningssystemet. Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
villa aldri ha skjedd. Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd. Og det
ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
-uttrykksteknologi. Hvis du kjører gjennom området Presidio i San Francisco,
-kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med fargefulle og
-iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> i stedet for
-navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare</span>»</span> mentalt i
-prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør. Disse bussene er fylt med
-teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film. Ikke filmen til Eastman. Ikke
-en gang filmen i din videospiller. I stedet er det snakk om
+uttrykksteknologi.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931830"></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="id
3100078"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3100085"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2931906"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2931914"></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="id3100116" href="#ftn.id3100116" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
+få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2931945" href="#ftn.id2931945" 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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2931972"></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>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3100171"></a>
+er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem</span>»</span>.
</p><p>
Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>»</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
skrive. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>»</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100198"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2932026"></a><p>
Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
-TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
-reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id3100213" href="#ftn.id3100213" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
-viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>»</span> til media. For på samme måte som
-det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media. Og
-akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
+TV-reklamer i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
+reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2932040" href="#ftn.id2932040" 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>
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 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.
+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><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.
den. En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
skrevet. En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
reflektere over det en har laget.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100253"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2932081"></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="id3100312" href="#ftn.id3100312" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
+tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2932140" href="#ftn.id2932140" 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
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="id3100356" href="#ftn.id3100356" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100384"></a><p>
+forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id2932184" href="#ftn.id2932184" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2932211"></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
</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 filmregisører. Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt. I
-stedet, som Daley forklarer,
+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
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="id3100469" href="#ftn.id3100469" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
+uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2932296" href="#ftn.id2932296" 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="id3100491" href="#ftn.id3100491" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100499"></a><p>
+århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2932318" href="#ftn.id2932318" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2932325"></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
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="id3100721"></a><p>
-Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
-et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
-til denne nyheten. Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
-ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
-disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til. Genialiteten i denne
-forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
-perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2932548"></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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
underholdning</span>»</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3100773"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2932598"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2932604"></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
dagbok. I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
måte—det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2932692"></a><p>
Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter. Det er noen som
bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv. Men det er mange som
bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
valgene teller. Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
rutinepreget. De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100909"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2932746"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2932752"></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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
-avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id3100955" href="#ftn.id3100955" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
+avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2932799" href="#ftn.id2932799" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag. Og i dets sted er det
ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
-innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id3100977" href="#ftn.id3100977" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
+innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id2932821" href="#ftn.id2932821" 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>.
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="id3101015" href="#ftn.id3101015" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
+ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2932859" href="#ftn.id2932859" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogs1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2932885"></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
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2932922"></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. <a class="indexterm" name="id3101072"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3101079"></a><p>
+lese dem en effekt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2932940"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2932946"></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
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 tvinget til å
-trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id3101113" href="#ftn.id3101113" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3101125"></a>
+trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id2932980" href="#ftn.id2932980" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3101206"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2933065"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2933071"></a><p>
Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
konsentert (mer om dette under). Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan—slik CNN innrømte at de
gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
-ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id3100933" href="#ftn.id3100933" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
+ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2932777" href="#ftn.id2932777" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
en mer konsistent rapportering. (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq. New York-hovedkvarteret ba
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="id3101269" href="#ftn.id3101269" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
+hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id2933134" href="#ftn.id2933134" 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
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="id3101306" href="#ftn.id3101306" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
+blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2933171" href="#ftn.id2933171" 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
kritikk forbedrer demokratiet. I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
blogger der det skrives på denne måten. Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3101437"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
-John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i
-følge hans eget nettsted, er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og … å skape
-kunnskapsøkologier for å skape … innovasjon</span>»</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2933314"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2933322"></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
hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
…da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet. Det kan
fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3101622"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3101629"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2933508"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2933515"></a><p>
Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
</p><p>
Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
-Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>) har utviklet et
+Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>) har utviklet et
kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>»</span> slik det
-gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id3101680" href="#ftn.id3101680" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det
+gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2933566" href="#ftn.id2933566" 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>
undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. … We
bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>»</span>.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3101739"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2933625"></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
+møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Chapter 9. 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.id3099645" href="#id3099645" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2931427" href="#id2931427" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3096888" href="#id3096888" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2927637" href="#id2927637" 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="id3099698"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3099724" href="#id3099724" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
+Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id2931474"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2931500" href="#id2931500" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3099734" href="#id3099734" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2931510" href="#id2931510" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3099675" href="#id3099675" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2931451" href="#id2931451" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3099827" href="#id3099827" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2931611" href="#id2931611" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
<em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
<em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3099896" href="#id3099896" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2931691" href="#id2931691" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>»</span>,
-<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id3099908"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3099916"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3099951" href="#id3099951" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2931703"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2931711"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2931760" href="#id2931760" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
(1960) 398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3100116" href="#id3100116" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2931945" href="#id2931945" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
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.id3100213" href="#id3100213" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932040" href="#id2932040" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on
Family and TV Study</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1997, B6.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3100312" href="#id3100312" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932140" href="#id2932140" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3100320"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3100328"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3100356" href="#id3100356" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2932147"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2932156"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932184" href="#id2932184" class="para">37</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.id3100469" href="#id3100469" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932296" href="#id2932296" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id3100476"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3100491" href="#id3100491" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2932302"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932318" href="#id2932318" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3100955" href="#id3100955" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932799" href="#id2932799" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
America</em>, bk. 1, overs. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
2000), kap. 16.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3100977" href="#id3100977" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932821" href="#id2932821" class="para">41</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.id3101015" href="#id3101015" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932859" href="#id2932859" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2001), 65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3101113" href="#id3101113" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932980" href="#id2932980" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
Pot</span>»</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3100933" href="#id3100933" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2932777" href="#id2932777" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3101269" href="#id3101269" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2933134" href="#id2933134" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
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.id3101306" href="#id3101306" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2933171" href="#id2933171" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
-Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke
-alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like stor aksept for ansatte som
-blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i Irak som startet en blogg om
-sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å publisere 12 dager senere på
-forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve Olafson, en
-<em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en
-personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av
-temaene og folkene som han dekket</span>»</span>) <a class="indexterm" name="id3101364"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3101373"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3101680" href="#id3101680" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2933201"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2933210"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2933216"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2933222"></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.id2933566" href="#id2933566" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 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="id3101789"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
-Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
-førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
-Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi. Selv om han ikke var
-en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
-søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2933675"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Høsten 2001</strong></span>, ble Jesse Jordan fra
+Oceanside, New York, innrullert som førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer
+Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York. Hans studieprogram ved RPI var
+informasjonsteknologi. Selv om han ikke var en programmerer, bestemte Jesse
+seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en søkemotorteknologi som var
+tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
</p><p>
RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
kvaliteten på søk i nettverket. Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
-enda bedre. Ideen med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranett</span>»</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
+enda bedre. Idéen med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranett</span>»</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
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="id
3102035"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2933926"></a><p>
Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat. De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">med vilje</span>»</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene. De krevde
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="id
3102060"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3102072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2933952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2933962"></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
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="id3102104" href="#ftn.id3102104" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3102121"></a><p>
+2001.<sup>[<a name="id2933995" href="#ftn.id2933995" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2934012"></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="id
3102142"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2934033"></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
</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="id
3102184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2934074"></a><p>
Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral. La oss
legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen. Hvor er moralen i
et søksmål som dette? Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam. RIAA er en spesielt
mektig lobby. Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $1
million i året. Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt. Den
-gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id3102188" href="#ftn.id3102188" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
+gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2934078" href="#ftn.id2934078" 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="id3102245" href="#ftn.id3102245" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
+student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2934132" href="#ftn.id2934132" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
for RIAA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
treklemmer. … Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap. Og han ønsker å
korrigere rullebladet.</span>»</span>
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102104" href="#id3102104" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2933995" href="#id2933995" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
-Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
+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.id3102188" href="#id3102188" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934078" href="#id2934078" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
(27–2042—Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102245" href="#id3102245" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934132" href="#id2934132" 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><p>
-Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen
-til andre uten deres tillatelse—hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
-rettighet</span>»</span> er sant—da er historien om innholdsindustrien en
-historie om piratvirksomhet. Hver eneste viktige sektor av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store
-medier</span>»</span> i dag—film, plater, radio og kabel-TV—kom fra en
-slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen. Den konsekvente fortellingen
-er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne generasjonens
-borgerskap—inntil nå.
-</p><div 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="id3102357" href="#ftn.id3102357" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2934208"></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="id2934259" href="#ftn.id2934259" 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 Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter—patenter. Edison
+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 kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
+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 uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
-som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
+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><p>
-Med et land som så en kolosal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2934328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2934334"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2934340"></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, konfiserte General Film ulisensiert utstyr, stoppet
+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="id3102438" href="#ftn.id3102438" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3102478"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3102485"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3102491"></a>
+kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id2934370" href="#ftn.id2934370" 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="id3102513" href="#ftn.id3102513" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
-til å flykte til østkysten. Californa var fjernt nok fra Edisons
+ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2934431" href="#ftn.id2934431" 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 Hollywods filmskapere, Fox mest
+frykte loven. Og lederne blant Hollywoods filmskapere, Fox mest
fremtredende, gjorde akkurat dette.
</p><p>
år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
kreative rettigheter.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.2.
Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="4.2.
Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
musikk.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
3102594"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
2934509"></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
Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3102622"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2934537"></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
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 opphavsrettsloven). Så hvis jeg ganske
-enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
+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="id
3102650"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2934565"></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="id3102686"></a>
+det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2934601"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten. En komponist skriver en sang eller
en opera. En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
registrerer opphavsretten til den. Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
-arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
-om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3102713" href="#ftn.id3102713" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3102738"></a><p>
+arbeidet som kommer fra hjernen til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
+om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2934628" href="#ftn.id2934628" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2934657"></a><p>
Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, tallentet og geniet til amerikanske
-komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id3102755" href="#ftn.id3102755" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, talentet og geniet til amerikanske
+komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id2934674" href="#ftn.id2934674" 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="id3102771" href="#ftn.id3102771" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
+denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2934691" href="#ftn.id2934691" 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="id3102788" href="#ftn.id3102788" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
-arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
-argued that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
-automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
-before their introduction.</span>»</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
-of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id3102809" href="#ftn.id3102809" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
-innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to consider first the
-interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
-are.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>»</span> the general counsel of
-the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
-there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
-defined by statute.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3102833" href="#ftn.id3102833" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3102846"></a>
+tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2934707" href="#ftn.id2934707" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2934717"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2934724"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2934730"></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="id2934754" href="#ftn.id2934754" 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="id2934783" href="#ftn.id2934783" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
</p><p>
Dette er et unntak i opphavsrettsloven. Når John Grisham skriver en roman
så kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren
-tillatelse til det. Girsham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst
+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 opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3102915"></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="id3102397" href="#ftn.id3102397" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3102956"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2934858"></a>
+</p><p>
+Men loven som styrer innspillinger gir innspillingsartisten mindre. Og
+dermed er effekten at loven <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidierer</em></span>
+musikkindustrien med et slags piratvirksomhet—ved å gi
+innspillingsartister en svakere rettighet enn de gir kreative forfattere.
+The Beatles har mindre kontroll over deres kreative verker enn Grisham har.
+Og de som nyter godt av at de har mindre kontroll er musikkindustrien og
+folket. Musikkindustrien får noe av verdi for mindre enn de ellers måtte
+betalt, og folket får tilgang til en større mengde musikalsk kreativitet.
+Kongressen var faktisk svært eksplisitt i sine grunner for å dele ut denne
+rettigheten. Den fryktet monopolmakten til rettighetsinnehaverne, og at
+denne makten skulle kvele påfølgende kreativitet.<sup>[<a name="id2934300" href="#ftn.id2934300" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2934905"></a>
</p><p>
Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
innspillinger. Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
on the Judiciary:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
-must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
-half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
-States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
-disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
-need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
-terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
-recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
-license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
-rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
-with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
-choice.<sup>[<a name="id3102993" href="#ftn.id3102993" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
+plateprodusentene argumenterte energisk for at tvangslisens-systemet måtte
+bevares. De tok utgangspunkt i at musikkindustrien er et forretningsområde
+på en halv milliard dollar som er veldig viktig for økonomien i USA og
+resten av verden. Plater er i dag den viktigste måten å spre musikk, og
+dette fører til spesielle problemer, siden utøvere trenger uhindret tilgang
+til musikalsk materiale på ikke-diskriminerende vilkår. Plateprodusentene
+pekte på at historisk var det ingen innspillingsrettigheter før 1909 og
+1909-endringen i lovverket vedtok tvangslisensen som en gjennomtenkt
+mekanisme for å unngå monopol da de tildelte disse rettighetene. De
+argumenterer med at resultatet har vært at det har strømmet på med innspilt
+musikk, at folket har fått lavere priser, bedre kvalitet og flere
+valg.<sup>[<a name="id2934958" href="#ftn.id2934958" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.3.
Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments1"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="4.3.
Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments1"></a><p>
Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
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="id3103053" href="#ftn.id3103053" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id2935019" href="#ftn.id2935019" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
hans verk. Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
-fremføringe.
+fremføringen.
</p><p>
Men når en radiostasjon spiller en plage, så fremfører det ikke bare et
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="id3103140"></a>
+komponisten av musikken for hans verk. <a class="indexterm" name="id2935110"></a>
</p><p>
innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
betale henne noen ting.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103213"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2935182"></a><p>
Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
på dette. I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg. Kanskje. Men selv om det er slik,
så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget. Ved å
-gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
+gjøre valget for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
uten å betale.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3103237"></a></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
-
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2935206"></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="idxcabletv1"></a><p>
Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
noen gang gjorde—Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
mulig for andre å gi bort.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103263"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103270"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103294"></a><p>
-Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft. Rosel
-Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unfair
-and potentially destructive competition.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3103307" href="#ftn.id3103307" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public interest</span>»</span> in spreading
-the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
-National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
-testimony, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
-property?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3103334" href="#ftn.id3103334" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
-broadcaster put it,
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2935242"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935273"></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="id2935291" href="#ftn.id2935291" 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="id2935326" href="#ftn.id2935326" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
-business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
-for.<sup>[<a name="id3103351" href="#ftn.id3103351" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
+Den uvanlige tingen med kabel-TV-selskapene er at det er de eneste
+selskapene jeg vet om hvor produktet som blir solgt ikke er betalt
+for.<sup>[<a name="id2935343" href="#ftn.id2935343" 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="id3103379" href="#ftn.id3103379" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103390"></a><p>
+ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2935371" href="#ftn.id2935371" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2935383"></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="id3103406" href="#ftn.id3103406" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
+skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2935399" href="#ftn.id2935399" 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="id3102278" href="#ftn.id3102278" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103458"></a>
+Vårt poeng her er ikke problemet med om hvorvidt du over hode har
+opphavsrettsbeskyttelse. Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
+som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
+utvide dette monopolet. … Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
+ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id2934166" href="#ftn.id2934166" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2935454"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
</p><p>
-It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
-whether cable companies had to pay for the content they
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirated.</span>»</span> In the end, Congress resolved this question in the
-same way that it resolved the question about record players and player
-pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they
-broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
-owner. The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise
-veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
-built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> of the value created
-by broadcasters' content.
-</p><p>
-These separate stories sing a common theme. If <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> means
-using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
-that creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id3103447" href="#ftn.id3103447" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> — then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
-affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
-of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. … The list is long and
-could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
-last. Every generation—until now.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102357" href="#id3102357" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
-
-Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
-ekstraordinære historien. Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
-and Copywrongs</em>, 87–93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id3102373"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102438" href="#id3102438" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
+Det tok kongressen nesten tredve år før den fikk løst spørsmålet om hvorvidt
+kabel-TV-selskapene måtte betale for innholdet de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span>. Til
+slutt løste kongressen dette spørsmålet på samme måte som den hadde løst
+spørsmålet om platespillere og automatiske pianoer. Ja, kabel-TV-selskapene
+måtte betale for innholdet som de kringkastet, men prisen de måtte betale
+ble ikke satt av opphavsrettsinnehaveren. Prisen ble fastsatt ved lov, slik
+at kringkasterne ikke kunne utøve vetomakt over den nye teknologien
+kabel-TV. Kabel-TV-selskapene bygde dermed deres imperium delvis ved å
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2935497"></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="id2935429" href="#ftn.id2935429" 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.id2934259" href="#id2934259" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2934263"></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.id2934370" href="#id2934370" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
-Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
-expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
-Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>»</span> available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
-discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
-imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison
-to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
-Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
-Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
-No. 159. <a class="indexterm" name="id3102467"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102513" href="#id3102513" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
+Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) og
+utvidede tekster lagt ut på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
+Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
+fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For en
+diskusjon om det økomiske motivet bak begge disse begresningene, og
+begresningene pålagt av Victor på fonografer, se Randal C. Picker,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal
+and the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (september 2002), University of
+Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working
+Paper No. 159. <a class="indexterm" name="id2934404"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934431" href="#id2934431" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">The Silents
Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102713" href="#id3102713" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934628" href="#id2934628" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
-and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
-sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
-chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
-Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
-Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="id3102726"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102755" href="#id3102755" 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="id2934646"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934674" href="#id2934674" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102771" href="#id3102771" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934691" href="#id2934691" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102788" href="#id3102788" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934707" href="#id2934707" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
John Philip Sousa, komponist).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102809" href="#id3102809" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934754" href="#id2934754" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84
(uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
Company of New York).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102833" href="#id3102833" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934783" href="#id2934783" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
-innspill fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
+innlegg fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
Company Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102397" href="#id3102397" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934300" href="#id2934300" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
-H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
-217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
-<em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
-E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven: Høring om S. 2499, S.2900, H.R. 243, og
+H.R. 11794 foran (felles)-komiteen om patenter, 60. kongr., 1. sess., 217
+(1908) (uttalelse fra senator Reed Smooth, formann), gjengitt i
+<em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>, E.
+Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
Reprints, 1976).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102993" href="#id3102993" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
-the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
-1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103053" href="#id3103053" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
-
-See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
-the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
-Broadcast</span>»</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
-play a record on a radio station. Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
-that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
-station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
-Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
-Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934958" href="#id2934958" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Endring av opphavsrettsloven: Rapport som følger H.R. 2512, House Committee
+on the Judiciary, 90. Kongr., 1. sess., House Document no. 83, (8. mars
+1967). Jeg er takknemlig til Glenn Brown for å ha gjort meg oppmerksom på
+denne rapporten.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935019" href="#id2935019" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
+
+Se 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, seksjon 106 og 110. I
+begynnelsen skrev noen plateselskaper <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke lisensiert for
+radiokringkasting</span>»</span> og andre meldinger som ga inntrykk av å begrense
+muligheten tli å spille en plate på en radiostasjon. Dommer Learned Hand
+avviste argumentet om at en advarsel klistret på en plate kunne begrense
+rettighetene til radiostasjonen. Se <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
+Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
+Cir. 1940). Se også Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
-Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
-70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="id3103085"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103094"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103307" href="#id3103307" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
+Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
+70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="id2935056"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2935064"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935291" href="#id2935291" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
-Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
-on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966) (statement of Rosel
-H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission). <a class="indexterm" name="id3103274"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103334" href="#id3103334" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven—Kabel-TV: Høring om S. 1006 foran
+underkomiteen om patenter, varemerker og opphavsrett av Senate Committee on
+the Judiciary, 89. Kongr., 2. sess., 78 (1966) (uttalelse fra Rosel H. Hyde,
+styreleder i den føderale kommunikasjonskommisjonen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2935252"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935326" href="#id2935326" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
-general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103351" href="#id3103351" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven—Kabel-TV, 116 (uttalelse fra Douglas
+A. Anello, sjefsjuristen i Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935343" href="#id2935343" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
-general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103379" href="#id3103379" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven—Kabel-TV, 126 (uttalelse fra Ernest
+W. Jennes, sjefsjurist ved Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
+Inc.).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935371" href="#id2935371" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B. Krim,
-president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
-Artists Television, Inc.).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103406" href="#id3103406" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
+Endring i opphavsrettsloven—Kabel-TV, 169 (felles uttalelse fra Arthur
+B. Krim, president i United Artists Corp. og John Sinn, president i United
+Artists Television Inc.).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935399" href="#id2935399" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
-president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id3103384"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3102278" href="#id3102278" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
+Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (uttalelse fra Charlton Heston,
+president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id2935376"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2934166" href="#id2934166" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id3103410"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103447" href="#id3103447" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
+fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id2935402"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935429" href="#id2935429" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
+Se for eksempel National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free
-Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The threat of
-piracy—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
-compensation—has grown with the Internet.</span>»</span>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 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>
-There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
-many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
-taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
-many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
-wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
-</p><p>
-
-But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
-taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
-we paint this taking <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> however, we should understand
-its nature a bit more. For the harm of this taking is significantly more
-ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
-ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
-
-</p><div class="section" title="5.1. Piratvirksomhet I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3103590"></a><p>
-All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
-businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
-copy it, and sell it—all without the permission of a copyright
-owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
-every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id3103438" href="#ftn.id3103438" 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="id3103682" href="#ftn.id3103682" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id3103725"></a><p>
-Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
-case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
-American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
-American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
-otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id3103740" href="#ftn.id3103740" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
-of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
-have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
-taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
-Barnes & Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
-should it be any different with on-line music?</span>»</span> The difference is, of
-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
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take</span>»</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
-wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
-content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
-we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
-technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
-permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
-means.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3103827"></a><p>
-Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
-piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
-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="id3103851"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3103858"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103864"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103876"></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. <a class="indexterm" name="id3103600"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103900"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3103921"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103927"></a>
-</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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span>
-is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong if that term is
-understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
-content or new ways of doing business. Neither our tradition nor any
-tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> in that sense of the
-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="section" title="5.2. Piratvirksomhet II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piratvirksomhet II</h2></div></div></div><p>
-
-The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
-that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3104012" href="#ftn.id3104012" 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="id3104036" href="#ftn.id3104036" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
-crew had simply put together components that had been developed
-independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id3104066"></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="id3104079" href="#ftn.id3104079" 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="id3104128" href="#ftn.id3104128" 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="id3104157" href="#ftn.id3104157" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
-are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
-being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
-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.
+Information</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Trusselen fra
+piratvirksomhet—bruken av noen andres kreative verker uten tillatelse
+eller kompenasjons—har vokst med internettet.</span>»</span>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Chapter 5. 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="id2935622"></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="id2935432" href="#ftn.id2935432" 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="id2935753" href="#ftn.id2935753" 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="id2935801"></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="id2935820" href="#ftn.id2935820" 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="id2935889"></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="id2935939"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935946"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935961"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935967"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935974"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935983"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935989"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2935998"></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="id2936042"></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="id2936065"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2936071"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2936077"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2936083"></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="id2936226" href="#ftn.id2936226" 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="id2936247"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2936254"></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="id2936271" href="#ftn.id2936271" 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="id2936323" href="#ftn.id2936323" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Rettsaker skøt 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="id2936376" href="#ftn.id2936376" 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="id2936408" href="#ftn.id2936408" 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"><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2936469"></a><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="id3104217"></a>
+
+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>
-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.
+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>
-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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recalling</span>»</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
-range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is
-still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
-owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
-zero—the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
-45-rpm records to a local collector.
+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 sogt,
+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>
-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.
+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>
-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="id3104287" href="#ftn.id3104287" 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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> that is
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">devastating</span>»</span> the industry.
-</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="id2936577" href="#ftn.id2936577" 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
+set—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>
While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young put it,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
-fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3104340" href="#ftn.id3104340" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
+fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2936648" href="#ftn.id2936648" 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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2936690"></a><p>
Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
`crisis' … was not the fault of the tapers—who did not [stop
after MTV came into being]—but had to a large extent resulted from
-stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3103751" href="#ftn.id3103751" 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
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">net harm</span>»</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
-type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
-through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
-would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
-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.
+stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2935833" href="#ftn.id2935833" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2936722"></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
+indistrien spesielt, og samfunnet generelt—eller i hvert fall det
+samfunnet som arvet tradisjonen som ga oss filmindistrien, plateindustrien,
+radioindustrien, kabel-TV og videospilleren—så er ikke spørsmåle 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>
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="id3104446" href="#ftn.id3104446" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
+million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2936806" href="#ftn.id2936806" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
-price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3104496" href="#ftn.id3104496" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
+price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2936857" href="#ftn.id2936857" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
<em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
<em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
-get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3104532" href="#ftn.id3104532" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
+get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2936893" href="#ftn.id2936893" 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.
+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 gratisk. Dermed selv om 2,6 ganger det totale antallet
+CDer ble lastet ned gratis, så falt salgsinntektene med kun 6,7 prosent.
</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
number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2936947"></a><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?
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="id3104582" href="#ftn.id3104582" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
+are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2936957" href="#ftn.id2936957" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
<span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2936996"></a><p>
In real space—long before the Internet—the market had a simple
response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
-of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id3104623" href="#ftn.id3104623" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
+of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2937007" href="#ftn.id2937007" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2937066"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2937072"></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
stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
well?
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><p>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
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><a class="indexterm" name="id2937148"></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>
-Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
-no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
-sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
-important in order to protect type A content.
-</p><p>
-The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
-says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>»</span> we must also ask,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
-efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
-unavailable?</span>»</span>
+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 unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
-good. And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
+good. And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to
-zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3104803" href="#ftn.id3104803" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
+zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2937235" href="#ftn.id2937235" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
less.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104853"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2937285"></a><p>
So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being respected (since
the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletv2"></a><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
cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
<span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
control over the future (cable).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104916"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2937368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2937376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></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
called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20,
30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
`tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
-asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3104984" href="#ftn.id3104984" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
+asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2937448" href="#ftn.id2937448" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
-basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3105006" href="#ftn.id3105006" 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="id3105015" href="#ftn.id3105015" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
+basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2937470" href="#ftn.id2937470" 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="id2937480" href="#ftn.id2937480" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
— a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
copyrightowners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from
the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
-from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3105045" href="#ftn.id3105045" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
+from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2937509" href="#ftn.id2937509" 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
technology—which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse yet, it was a
<span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
-industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id3105067" href="#ftn.id3105067" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3105091"></a>
+industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2937531" href="#ftn.id2937531" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2937555"></a>
</p><p>
But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit. And in
copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
-technology.<sup>[<a name="id3105117" href="#ftn.id3105117" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
+technology.<sup>[<a name="id2937581" href="#ftn.id2937581" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision. But as with
the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a
pattern is clear:
-</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="
char">Tilfelle</th><th align="char">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span></th><th align="char">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="char">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Innspillinger</td><td align="char">Komponister</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Radio</td><td align="char">Innspillingsartister</td><td align="char">N/A</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Kabel-TV</td><td align="char">Kringkastere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">VCR</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="
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="id2937709"></a><p>
In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
-content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id3105249" href="#ftn.id3105249" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
+content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2937721" href="#ftn.id2937721" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
ride</span>»</span> on someone else's work.
</p><p>
technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
stake.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2937800"></a><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
We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
-possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3105349" href="#ftn.id3105349" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
+possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2937828" href="#ftn.id2937828" 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
develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz writes in
<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
-P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3105409" href="#ftn.id3105409" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
-begins to talk about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a
-different argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
-incentives,</span>»</span> they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
-content,</span>»</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our
-<span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
-`rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
-police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
-all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
-good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
+P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2937888" href="#ftn.id2937888" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk about
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
+argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and incentives,</span>»</span>
+they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our content,</span>»</span> the
+warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we
+wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait
+before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why should
+Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether
+the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103438" href="#id3103438" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935432" href="#id2935432" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
-See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
+Se IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
<em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
-July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
-Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103682" href="#id3103682" 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="id3102816"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103713"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103740" href="#id3103740" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
-
-For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
+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.id2935753" href="#id2935753" 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="id2934761"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2935786"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935820" href="#id2935820" 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), 144–90. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In some instances … the impact of
-piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
-work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
-individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
-pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id3103757"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104012" href="#id3104012" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
+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="id2935845"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936226" href="#id2936226" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104036" href="#id3104036" 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="id3103749"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104079" href="#id3104079" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
-Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
-September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
-Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster
-Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
-Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
-Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936271" href="#id2936271" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2936274"></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 diskkusjon om
+Christensens idéer, se Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
+89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2935830"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936323" href="#id2936323" 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 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104128" href="#id3104128" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26. juli 2002, 18.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936376" href="#id2936376" 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 id="ftn.id3104157" href="#id3104157" class="para">77</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.id2936408" href="#id2936408" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104287" href="#id3104287" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6. juni 2003, A1.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936577" href="#id2936577" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
-148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id3104055"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104340" href="#id3104340" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
-Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
-describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
-cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
-cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
-music.</span>»</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
-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
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2936303"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936648" href="#id2936648" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2936651"></a> See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young,
+<em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model
+Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report describes the music industry's
+effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in the 1970s,
+including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the
+caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing music.</span>»</span> At the time digital
+audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a
+survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten
+had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
+Assessment, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
-Office, October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3103751" href="#id3103751" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
+Office, October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2935833" href="#id2935833" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104446" href="#id3104446" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936806" href="#id2936806" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104496" href="#id3104496" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936857" href="#id2936857" 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="id3104512"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104532" href="#id3104532" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
+13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2936873"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936893" href="#id2936893" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104582" href="#id3104582" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936957" href="#id2936957" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104623" href="#id3104623" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937007" href="#id2937007" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
-
-While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
-existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
-an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
-Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
-National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
-Results,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104803" href="#id3104803" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2937016"></a> While there are not good estimates of
+the number of used record stores in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198
+used book dealers in the United States, an increase of 20 percent since
+1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion
+of the Used Book Market</em> (2002), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Used records accounted
+for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National Association of Recording
+Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey Results,</span>»</span> available at
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937235" href="#id2937235" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
York: Crown Business, 2003), 269–82.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104984" href="#id3104984" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937448" href="#id2937448" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
of America, Inc.).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105006" href="#id3105006" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937470" href="#id2937470" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105015" href="#id3105015" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937480" href="#id2937480" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105045" href="#id3105045" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937509" href="#id2937509" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
Valenti).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105067" href="#id3105067" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937531" href="#id2937531" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105117" href="#id3105117" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937581" href="#id2937581" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105249" href="#id3105249" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937721" href="#id2937721" 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
eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
-Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id3104825"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3105287"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105349" href="#id3105349" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
+Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2937257"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2937760"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937828" href="#id2937828" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
-<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
+<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105409" href="#id3105409" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2937888" href="#id2937888" 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>
+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="
Part II. «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Part II. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Eiendom»"><div></div><p>
-Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
-eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
-opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker. Markeder
-bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
-kan få.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Opphavsretts-krigerne</strong></span> har rett:
+Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan eies og selges, og loven beskytter
+mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som
+helst pris som han ønsker. Markeder bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i
+hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun kan få.
</p><p>
Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
-er en merkelig type eiendom. Selve ideen om eienrettigheter til en ide
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eiendommen i opphavsretten
+er en merkelig type eiendom. Selve Idéen om eienrettigheter til en idé
eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig. Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage. Jeg tar en ting,
-piknik-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det. Men hva tar jeg
-når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>ideen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
+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><p>
-Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og ideer er ting, selv om det
+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 ideer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
+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
-information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
-från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3105559" href="#ftn.id3105559" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
+informasjon uten å ta noe fra me, 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="id2938030" href="#ftn.id2938030" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
+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 ide eller uttrykk uten
-min tilatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
+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="id3105602" href="#ftn.id3105602" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
+plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id2938092" href="#ftn.id2938092" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
foregående del. Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span> i sammenheng. Hvor kom
-ideen fra? Hva er dens begresninger? Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
+idéen fra? Hva er dens begresninger? Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
utsagnet—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>— bli
litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105559" href="#id3105559" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938030" href="#id2938030" 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.id3105602" href="#id3105602" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938092" href="#id2938092" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
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="id3105666"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3105672"></a><p>
-William Shakespeare skrev <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i
-1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store
-skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
-til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
-kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
-vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
-som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men
-Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer.</span>»</span>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2938156"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2938162"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishlaw"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> skrev
+<em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
+1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han
+fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt til 1613, og stykkene han 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><p>
I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
-utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id3105715" href="#ftn.id3105715" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
+utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2938224" href="#ftn.id2938224" 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="id3105764" href="#ftn.id3105764" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
+Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2938273" href="#ftn.id2938273" 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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><p>
Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
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="id3105811" href="#ftn.id3105811" 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>
+en ekstraperiode på 22 tilleggsår.<sup>[<a name="id2938330" href="#ftn.id2938330" 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="id2938360"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, var det ingen annen
lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
-at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker. <a class="indexterm" name="id3105864"></a>
+at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.
</p><p>
At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eieren</span>»</span> av
en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
-bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
+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><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>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares verk?
+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><p>
Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
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="id
3106045"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2938564"></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
fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3106071"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3106078"></a><p>
-Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2938590"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2938597"></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
om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>»</span> prøv
hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
-så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
+så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteressene kunne
skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellers"></a><p>
Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
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="id3106176" href="#ftn.id3106176" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
+nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2938706" href="#ftn.id2938706" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
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="id3106259" href="#ftn.id3106259" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2938790" href="#ftn.id2938790" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
-beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
+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. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute
of Anne</span>»</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2938855"></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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne … like
-bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3104386" href="#ftn.id3104386" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
+bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2936706" href="#ftn.id2936706" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
forfatterens verk ga.
</p><p>
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
-kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id3106366" href="#ftn.id3106366" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2938909" href="#ftn.id2938909" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2938922"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2938928"></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="id3106393" href="#ftn.id3106393" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
+Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2938949" href="#ftn.id2938949" 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="id3106423" href="#ftn.id3106423" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3106432"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3106438"></a>
+skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2938978" href="#ftn.id2938978" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
-eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id3106459" href="#ftn.id3106459" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
+eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id2939001" href="#ftn.id2939001" 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.
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3106497"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2939046"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2939053"></a><p>
Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
-uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
-sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id3106526" href="#ftn.id3106526" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
+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="id2939081" href="#ftn.id2939081" 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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> gav
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
3106609"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2939163"></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
3106627"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2939183"></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="id3106640" href="#ftn.id3106640" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2939197" href="#ftn.id2939197" 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.
+Parlamentets mening med utløpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
</p><p>
Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
<em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
</p><p>
Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
-huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av
-enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
+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><p>
<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
+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="id3106753"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3106759"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3106766"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3106772"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3106778"></a>
+frie. <a class="indexterm" name="id2939310"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2939316"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2939322"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2939329"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2939335"></a>
</p><p>
Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
-piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
+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="id3106812" href="#ftn.id3106812" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
+*illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2939369" href="#ftn.id2939369" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
-familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id3106335" href="#ftn.id3106335" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2938872" href="#ftn.id2938872" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
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
+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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2939465"></a><p>
Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105715" href="#id3105715" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2939483"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2939491"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938224" href="#id2938224" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3105718"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3105727"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2938228"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2938236"></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
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.id3105764" href="#id3105764" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938273" href="#id2938273" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
151–52.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3105811" href="#id3105811" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938330" href="#id2938330" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
-Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
-en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
-and Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id3105823"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3106176" href="#id3106176" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2938333"></a> Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent
+argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette en
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
+Copywrongs</em>, 40.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938706" href="#id2938706" 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.id3106259" href="#id3106259" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938790" href="#id2938790" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3104386" href="#id3104386" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2936706" href="#id2936706" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
-Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>»</span>,
-<em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
-fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3105774"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3106366" href="#id3106366" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2938876"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2938884"></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.id2938909" href="#id2938909" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3106393" href="#id3106393" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938949" href="#id2938949" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
-University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id3106401"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3106423" href="#id3106423" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
+University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id2938956"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938978" href="#id2938978" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3106459" href="#id3106459" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2939001" href="#id2939001" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
-
-Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
-Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3106526" href="#id3106526" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2939005"></a> Lyman Ray Patterson,
+<em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting
+Borwell).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2939081" href="#id2939081" 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.id3106640" href="#id3106640" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2939197" href="#id2939197" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3106812" href="#id3106812" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2939369" href="#id2939369" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3106335" href="#id3106335" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2938872" href="#id2938872" 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><p>
-Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
-ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
-jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
-et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
-Gud.)
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Jon Else</strong></span> er en filmskaper. Han er mest
+kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på ypperlig vis klart å spre sin
+kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og jeg misunner den lojaliteten
+og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved et uhell møtte jeg to av
+hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres Gud.)
</p><p>
Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
*stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
-scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id3106966"></a>
+scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2939552"></a>
</p><p>
Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2939599"></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.<a class="indexterm" name="id3107030"></a>
-</p><p>
+programmet.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2939623"></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.<a class="indexterm" name="id3107050"></a>
+sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.
</p><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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
sekundene med … fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2939664"></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
å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>»</span> En
av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2939725"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2939731"></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. <a class="indexterm" name="id3107148"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3107154"></a>
+Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere.
</p><p>
Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
-eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
+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 markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
+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
selger billetter til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mine
<em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>»</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
-det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
-loven.
+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="id3107220" href="#ftn.id3107220" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
+første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2939813" href="#ftn.id2939813" 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.
Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>»</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">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="id3107329"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2939922"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2939929"></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
syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
_all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3107220" href="#id3107220" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2939813" href="#id2939813" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
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: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3107454"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3107473"></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="idxartistsretrospective"></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><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><p>
-Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Our
-goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
-films,</span>»</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No
-one had ever really done this before,</span>»</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No one
-had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
-career.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
-Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
-Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
-everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
-we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go for
-it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3107572" href="#ftn.id3107572" 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:
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2940055"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2940072"></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="id2940212" href="#ftn.id2940212" 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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my day</span>»</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
-Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
-wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission. And then you
-have to decide what you are going to pay him.
-</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="id3107645"></a><p>
-Some actors were glad to help—Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
-up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared. Others were
-dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
-you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>»</span> And
-they would say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
-$1,200.</span>»</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
-in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
-this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
-</p><p>
-It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">and even then we
-weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>»</span>
-</p><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="id2940307"></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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
-music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
-actors.</span>»</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
-constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
-directors, … this many musicians,</span>»</span> and we just went at it very
-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
3107726"></a><p>
-But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
-year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
-efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
-nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
-all.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3107742" href="#ftn.id3107742" 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
2940396"></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="id2940417" href="#ftn.id2940417" 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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">very few … have the time and
-resources, and the will to do this,</span>»</span> and thus, very few such works
-would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
-what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
-that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
+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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh,
-I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
-cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
-money,</span>»</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
-together.
+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 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?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3107838"></a><p>
-These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat
-for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of
-these rights, and the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost
-to negotiate them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and
-imagine the pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from
-Los Angeles to San Francisco.) These rights might well have once made
-sense; but as circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least,
-a well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights
-and ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3107863"></a><p>
-
-I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
-few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
-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.
+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="id2940540"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2940549"></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
+Fracisco.) Disse rettighetene gav sikkert mening en gang, men nå som
+forholdene har endret seg, er meningen borte. Ihvertfall så burde en
+veltrenet, reguleringsfientlig republikaner se på rettighetene og spørre
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gir dette mening nå?</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2940575"></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 lawyer 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="id
3107898"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2940615"></a><p>
Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3107924"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3107930"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> culture enabled by
-technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
-that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created—in a
-second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
-can have it planted in your presentation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3107959"></a><p>
-
-But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
-archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
-imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
-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.
-</p><p>
-All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
-to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal,</span>»</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
-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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> use be free as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free beer.</span>»</span> Instead,
-the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
-artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
-example, that says <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
-unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
-percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
-owner.</span>»</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
-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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>»</span> Under the
-agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
-picture hits and classics, write new storylines and—with the use of
-stateof-the-art digital technology—insert Myers and other actors into
-the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
-The announcement called this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>»</span> As Myers
-explained, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
-on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
-artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
-take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg is
-quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
-new audiences, it is Mike.</span>»</span>
-</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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
-use.</span>»</span> Much of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> should be considered
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
-create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
-the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
-content are astronomically high. These costs mirror the costs with fair
-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 class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3107572" href="#id3107572" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
-
-Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
-publicity—rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
-of his image. But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
-creativity, as this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id3107584"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3107598"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3107742" href="#id3107742" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2940641"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2940647"></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="id2940689"></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 brilliant. 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.id2940212" href="#id2940212" 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 hans 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="id2940230"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2940240"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2940417" href="#id2940417" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
<em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
-Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><p>
-In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>—computer codes designed
-to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
-content—began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
-Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
-basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
-the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
-months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
-</p><p>
+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="Chapter 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2940918"></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><a class="indexterm" name="id2940933"></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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3108202"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2940997"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941013"></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="id3108226" href="#ftn.id3108226" 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="id2941027" href="#ftn.id2941027" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2941060"></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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3108286"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2941105"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941130"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941137"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941143"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941149"></a><p>
The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
of material</span>»</span>—and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
3108347"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
2941193"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941199"></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
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>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2941223"></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="id2941251"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941257"></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
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="id3108403" href="#ftn.id3108403" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
+film company.<sup>[<a name="id2941270" href="#ftn.id2941270" 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,
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2941322"></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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3108460"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3108467"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2941343"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941349"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941357"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941366"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941372"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941378"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941384"></a><p>
Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
(meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
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="id2941466"></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="id3108564" href="#ftn.id3108564" 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="id2941478" href="#ftn.id2941478" 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"><a class="indexterm" name="id
3108644"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
2941572"></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
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="id2941584"></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
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="id3108719"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3108226" href="#id3108226" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2941651"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2941027" href="#id2941027" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3108229"></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.id3108403" href="#id3108403" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2941030"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2941039"></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.id2941270" href="#id2941270" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
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.id3108564" href="#id3108564" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
-Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake
-1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print
-in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
-Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
-44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
-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="id3108691"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108759"></a>
-</p><p>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2941478" href="#id2941478" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2941482"></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="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2941674"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941680"></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="id2941693"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941709"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941715"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941722"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941734"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2941740"></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="id3108778"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108784"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3108790"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108797"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108803"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108809"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108815"></a>
+Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.
</p><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="id3108874" href="#ftn.id3108874" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
+debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2941819" href="#ftn.id2941819" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
</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="id3108943" href="#ftn.id3108943" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
+understand,<sup>[<a name="id2941888" href="#ftn.id2941888" 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
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>
+<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
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 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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"><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
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="id3108831"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3109219"></a><p>
+by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id2941769"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942166"></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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3109240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942187"></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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3109248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942195"></a><p>
Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>—the physical world as one finds
it—is a constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your
comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
regulator (whether controlling or freeing) must consider how these four in
particular interact.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
3109324"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3109330"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3109336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942268"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2942275"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2942281"></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
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="id3109370" href="#ftn.id3109370" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
+in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2942315" href="#ftn.id2942315" 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
3109404"></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="id3109430"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942338"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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="id2942374"></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="id3109445" href="#ftn.id3109445" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
-</p><div class="section" title="10.1.
Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><p>
+modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2942389" href="#ftn.id2942389" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
+</p><div class="section" title="10.1.
Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><p>
The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
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
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="id3109563"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3109569"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 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="id2942507"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2942514"></a><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
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
10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3109646"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942591"></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
technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3109685"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3109691"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942630"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2942635"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2942642"></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="id3109714" href="#ftn.id3109714" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
+cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2942657" href="#ftn.id2942657" 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
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="id
3109762"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3109768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942705"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2942711"></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
the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
-competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3109788" href="#ftn.id3109788" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
+competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2942731" href="#ftn.id2942731" 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
of the changes the content industry wants.
</p><p>
Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2942816"></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="id3109888"></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
3109906"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3109912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942846"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2942853"></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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3109944"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942885"></a><p>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
-culture.<sup>[<a name="id3109960" href="#ftn.id3109960" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
+culture.<sup>[<a name="id2942901" href="#ftn.id2942901" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
that music should be given away <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that
</p><p>
In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3110010"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.2. Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Opphav</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2942951"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.2. Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Opphav</h2></div></div></div><p>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
purpose of rewarding authors.
</p><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
-chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
+chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Chapter 6. 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
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
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>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.6. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opphavsrett</span>»</span> i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Opphavsrett i dag."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 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="section" title="10.3.
Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.3.
Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
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="id3110197" href="#ftn.id3110197" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
+rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2943132" href="#ftn.id2943132" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
opphavsrettsregimet. Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
-14 år.<sup>[<a name="id3110265" href="#ftn.id3110265" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
+14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2943200" href="#ftn.id2943200" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
-work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id3110332" href="#ftn.id3110332" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
+work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2943267" href="#ftn.id2943267" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2943297"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2943305"></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="id3110367" href="#ftn.id3110367" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
+print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2943320" href="#ftn.id2943320" 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
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="id3110469" href="#ftn.id3110469" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.4.
Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Virkeområde</h2></div></div></div><p>
+the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2943427" href="#ftn.id2943427" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.4.
Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Virkeområde</h2></div></div></div><p>
The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
the law. The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
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="id3110622" href="#ftn.id3110622" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
+United States.<sup>[<a name="id2943580" href="#ftn.id2943580" 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>
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="id3110717" href="#ftn.id3110717" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
+protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2943676" href="#ftn.id2943676" 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="id3110765" href="#ftn.id3110765" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
+book.<sup>[<a name="id2943724" href="#ftn.id2943724" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
creative work are treated the same.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2943754"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2943760"></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
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="section" title="10.5.
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.5.
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
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="id3110831" href="#ftn.id3110831" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
+and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2943802" href="#ftn.id2943802" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
</p><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="id3110910" href="#ftn.id3110910" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
+copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2943881" href="#ftn.id2943881" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
law.
</p><p>
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
circle.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksusetypes"></a><p>
Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
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
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>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 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
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. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
copyrighted work.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1541.png" alt="Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated. You
the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span> for public policy (and possibly First
Amendment) reasons.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Uregulert kopiering anses som rimelig bruk."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>Figure 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
regulated.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1551.png" alt="Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
owner's views.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2944063"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2944071"></a><p>
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use of a
-copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id3110841" href="#ftn.id3110841" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
+copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2943812" href="#ftn.id2943812" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
use—reading— could be regulated by copyright law because none of
those uses produced a copy.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2944121"></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
available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2944248"></a><p>
The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews. The
idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span> technique by
permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
Disney's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3111307"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2944320"></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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3111335"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2944347"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2944354"></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="section" title="10.6.
Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.6.
Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
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
meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3111427"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2944446"></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="id3111475" href="#ftn.id3111475" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
+juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2944489" href="#ftn.id2944489" 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="id3111502" href="#ftn.id3111502" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
+det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2944516" href="#ftn.id2944516" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><p>
On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3111560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3111568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2944587"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2944595"></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
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>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 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
10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2944710"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2944716"></a><p>
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
-Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id3111692"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3111699"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>.
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.16. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 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>
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="id3111783" href="#ftn.id3111783" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
+power.<sup>[<a name="id2944808" href="#ftn.id2944808" 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
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2944853"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from
-the sentence. <a class="indexterm" name="id3111856"></a>
+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
</p><p>
We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
Reader.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2944926"></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:
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3111906"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alice i Eventyrland</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alice i Eventyrland</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read
incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control. That incentive
is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3111981"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2945012"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945020"></a><p>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
of mine that makes the same point.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
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
clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
-information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
-
-up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
-on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
-in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
+information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set up aibopet.com
+(and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and on that site he
+provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks in addition to
+the ones Sony had taught it.
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
computers. You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2945112"></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
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
3112119"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2945162"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945170"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945178"></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="id2945207"></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="id3112181" href="#ftn.id3112181" 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="id2945232" href="#ftn.id2945232" 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.
Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3112365"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112373"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112381"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2945408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945424"></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:
designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3112462"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112468"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112474"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2945505"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945518"></a><p>
Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
distributing a circumvention technology. Thus, even though he was not
himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
others to infringe others' copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3112512"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2945552"></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
doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> for example, had testified
in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
-Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="id3112534"></a>
+Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="id2945587"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
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="id3112573" href="#ftn.id3112573" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
+important.<sup>[<a name="id2945626" href="#ftn.id2945626" 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="id3112614"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2945675"></a>
</p><p>
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
</p><p>
copyrighted material—a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
use—a good end.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxhandguns"></a><p>
A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711
"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711
-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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="id2945734"></a><p>
The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
-guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do. <a class="indexterm" name="id3112673"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3112680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112686"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3112693"></a><p>
+guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2945754"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945762"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945770"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945782"></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="id3112757" href="#ftn.id3112757" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
+continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2945850" href="#ftn.id2945850" 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="id2945877"></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="section" title="10.7.
Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.7.
Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2945977"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945983"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945989"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2945995"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2946001"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2946008"></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,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
-sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3112871" href="#ftn.id3112871" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
+sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2946022" href="#ftn.id2946022" 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="id3112883" href="#ftn.id3112883" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
+Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2946034" href="#ftn.id2946034" 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="id3112901" href="#ftn.id3112901" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3112913"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3112920"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3112926"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3112932"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3112938"></a>
+nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2946052" href="#ftn.id2946052" 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="id2946083"></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="id3112970"></a>
+article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2946107"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
integration. They supply content—Fox movies … Fox TV shows
distribution system through which the content reaches the
customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
-system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3112995" href="#ftn.id3112995" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
+system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2946122" href="#ftn.id2946122" 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 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>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761
-pattern-modern-media-ownership"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe? Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
</p><p>
Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
er viktig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3113077"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3113083"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3113090"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2946206"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2946212"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2946219"></a><p>
I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
Family</em>. Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten. Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
andre. Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
-nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id3113122" href="#ftn.id3113122" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
+nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2946251" href="#ftn.id2946251" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
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="id3113185" href="#ftn.id3113185" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
+one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2946313" href="#ftn.id2946313" 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="id3113212" href="#ftn.id3113212" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3113220"></a><p>
+studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2946340" href="#ftn.id2946340" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2946348"></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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2946364"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2946370"></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,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3113244"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113250"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
-you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id3113268" href="#ftn.id3113268" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
+you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2946396" href="#ftn.id2946396" 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
3113296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2946423"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
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="id3113326" href="#ftn.id3113326" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
+trends.<sup>[<a name="id2946454" href="#ftn.id2946454" 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="id3113358"></a>
+there will be far too little sprinting. <a class="indexterm" name="id2946486"></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
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="id3113480" href="#ftn.id3113480" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
+defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2946606" href="#ftn.id2946606" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived in a
media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3113392"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.8. Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2946519"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.8. Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span> In
the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
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="id3113724" href="#ftn.id3113724" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
+known.<sup>[<a name="id2946850" href="#ftn.id2946850" 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="informaltable"><a name="t2"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="
char"> </th><th align="char">Publisere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+</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
free.
</p><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="
char"> </th><th align="char">Publisere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+</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="informaltable"><a name="t4"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="
char"> </th><th align="char">Kopiere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©/Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+</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="
char"> </th><th align="char">Kopiere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+</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
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: Omformere">8</a>, one might
+chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
+<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Chapter 8. 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.
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="id3114080" href="#ftn.id3114080" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>) has been crafted to balance
+rights<sup>[<a name="id2947216" href="#ftn.id2947216" 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
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="id
3114120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2947256"></a><p>
We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
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.id3108874" href="#id3108874" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2941819" href="#id2941819" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R. 4794,
Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3108943" href="#id3108943" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2941888" href="#id2941888" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
<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.id3109370" href="#id3109370" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2942315" href="#id2942315" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95;
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109445" href="#id3109445" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2942389" href="#id2942389" 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
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="id3109499"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3109508"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3109514"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3109521"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109714" href="#id3109714" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
+the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. <a class="indexterm" name="id2942443"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2942452"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2942458"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2942466"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2942657" href="#id2942657" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
<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.id3109788" href="#id3109788" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2942731" href="#id2942731" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
1994), 170–71.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3109960" href="#id3109960" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2942901" href="#id2942901" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110197" href="#id3110197" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943132" href="#id2943132" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
vol. 1, 485–86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
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="id3110215"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110265" href="#id3110265" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
+(emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2943150"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943200" href="#id2943200" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
-years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110332" href="#id3110332" 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.id2943267" href="#id2943267" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
-498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110367" href="#id3110367" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
+498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943320" href="#id2943320" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110469" href="#id3110469" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943427" href="#id2943427" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110622" href="#id3110622" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943580" href="#id2943580" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
1987).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110717" href="#id3110717" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943676" href="#id2943676" 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="id3110746"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110765" href="#id3110765" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
+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="id2943704"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943724" href="#id2943724" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and derivative
works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
-(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id3110783"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110831" href="#id3110831" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
+(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id2943741"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943802" href="#id2943802" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
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.id3110910" href="#id3110910" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943881" href="#id2943881" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3110841" href="#id3110841" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943812" href="#id2943812" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
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.id3111475" href="#id3111475" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2944489" href="#id2944489" class="para">136</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.id3111502" href="#id3111502" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2944516" href="#id2944516" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
-Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id3111489"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3111783" href="#id3111783" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2944519"></a> Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan,
+<em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 1–3.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2944808" href="#id2944808" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112181" href="#id3112181" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2945232" href="#id2945232" 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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
<em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
-Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3112236"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112573" href="#id3112573" 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="id2945288"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2945626" href="#id2945626" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
-<em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
-City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
-never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
-Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
-(New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71. <a class="indexterm" name="id3111509"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112757" href="#id3112757" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2945629"></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="id2944532"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2945850" href="#id2945850" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
(1997): 651.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112871" href="#id3112871" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946022" href="#id2946022" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003) (statement
-of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112883" href="#id3112883" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
+of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946034" href="#id2946034" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3112901" href="#id3112901" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946052" href="#id2946052" class="para">144</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.id3112995" href="#id3112995" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946122" href="#id2946122" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
-Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id3113014"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113122" href="#id3113122" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
+Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2946141"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946251" href="#id2946251" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
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.id3113185" href="#id3113185" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946313" href="#id2946313" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113212" href="#id3113212" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946340" href="#id2946340" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113268" href="#id3113268" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946396" href="#id2946396" class="para">149</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.id3113326" href="#id3113326" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946454" href="#id2946454" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to
Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
-2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113480" href="#id3113480" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
+2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946606" href="#id2946606" 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
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="id3113544"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113552"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3113558"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113564"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113571"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113577"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3113583"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3113724" href="#id3113724" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
+the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2946669"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2946678"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2946684"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2946690"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2946696"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2946703"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2946709"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2946850" href="#id2946850" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
-Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire
-kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
-Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. <a class="indexterm" name="id3113515"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114080" href="#id3114080" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2946859"></a> Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende
+poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den
+digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2947216" href="#id2947216" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
-1980). <a class="indexterm" name="id3114095"></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: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
-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="id3114241" href="#ftn.id3114241" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
-extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
-climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
-excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
-as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells
-himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live
-with the villagers to explore life as a king.
+1980). <a class="indexterm" name="id2947231"></a>
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Part III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 11. Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Chapter 11. Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> short story by
+H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an ice
+slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in the Peruvian
+Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2947376" href="#ftn.id2947376" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is extraordinarily
+beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich
+brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But
+the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In
+the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man
+is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life
+as a king.
</p><p>
Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
easy surgical operation—namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
eyes].</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They
inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
(You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
-believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.) It
-sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
-fusion produces a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature
-with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
-from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
+believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>It sometimes</strong></span> happens that the eggs of
+twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature with two sets of
+DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of
+the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
not the person whose blood was at the scene. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3114396"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3114403"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2947538"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2947547"></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
it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3114487"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2947630"></a>
</p><p>
file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
-been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id3114528" href="#ftn.id3114528" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
+been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2947671" href="#ftn.id2947671" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3114626"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2947777"></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
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="id3114714" href="#ftn.id3114714" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
+everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2947875" href="#ftn.id2947875" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
-changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id3114740"></a>
+changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2947901"></a>
</p><p>
Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114241" href="#id3114241" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2947376" href="#id2947376" 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.id3114528" href="#id3114528" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
-
-For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
-Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2947671" href="#id2947671" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2947674"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
+report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
+at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
+World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers
+Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that
+would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
+punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
+Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #34</a>. Civil penalties are
+currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
+legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
+user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
+<em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
+re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24
+(D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
+million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
+in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
+$17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
+networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
+could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com, August
2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
-(D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized on-line
-copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high as five years
-imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on
-Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#34</a>. Civil penalties are currently set at $150,000 per copied
-song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
-that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than 600
-songs through a family computer, see <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
-v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In re. Verizon Internet
-Services)</em>, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could
-face liability ranging as high as $90 million. Such astronomical figures
-furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
-sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to $17,500 for four students
-accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
-pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
-proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to
-Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com, August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an example of the
-RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
-universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3114609"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3114618"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114714" href="#id3114714" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
+#35</a>. For an example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing,
+and of the subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer
+identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
+Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003,
+D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2947763"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2947769"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2947875" href="#id2947875" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
-in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
-To fight <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the
-content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
-contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
-war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
-of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
+in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Chapter 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>To fight</strong></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to
+protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the content industry has launched a
+war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
+government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
+and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these damages will be
+suffered most by our own people.
</p><p>
My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now
time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest
in our history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3114801"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3114808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2947968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2947974"></a><p>
Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3114827"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2947993"></a><p>
There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
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="section" title="12.1.
Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="12.1.
Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
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
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2948085"></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="id3114930" href="#ftn.id3114930" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
+$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2948102" href="#ftn.id2948102" 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="id3114969" href="#ftn.id3114969" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
+damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2948141" href="#ftn.id2948141" 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="id3115012"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3115019"></a><p>
+negligently butchering a patient?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2948185"></a><p>
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
world of underground art—not because the message is necessarily
political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal
-art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3115038" href="#ftn.id3115038" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
+art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2948204" href="#ftn.id2948204" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2948250"></a><p>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
-law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
+law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2948278"></a><p>
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
them is not similarly free.
</p><p>
Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
-in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
+in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even
going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
which they control it.
-</p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2.
Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2.
Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3115241"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2948422"></a><p>
The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary—at a minimum, we
is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3115250"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2948431"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
-that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
+that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. 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
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
<em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3115305"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2948498"></a><p>
In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com was
keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2948514"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><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="id3115333"></a>
+so on.
</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="id2948552"></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
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
3115437"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3115445"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3115452"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3115458"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2948653"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2948663"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2948670"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2948677"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2948684"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2948690"></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="id3115471" href="#ftn.id3115471" 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="id2948704" href="#ftn.id2948704" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit. So extreme has the
environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
-Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id3115519"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3115525"></a>
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
3115534"></a><p>
+Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW:
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
2948760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2948767"></a><p>
I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
-sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <sup>[<a name="id3115198" href="#ftn.id3115198" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
+sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <sup>[<a name="id2948378" href="#ftn.id2948378" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3115621"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2948857"></a><p>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
are enough to bury a wide range of creativity. Someone needs to do a lot of
-justifying to justify that result. The uncertainty of the law is one burden
+justifying to justify that result.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>The uncertainty</strong></span> of the law is one burden
on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
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="id
3115690"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2948937"></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="id3115704" href="#ftn.id3115704" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
+or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2948951" href="#ftn.id2948951" 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="id3115733" href="#ftn.id3115733" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
+down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2948981" href="#ftn.id2948981" 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="id2949002"></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="id3115756" href="#ftn.id3115756" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
+impose.<sup>[<a name="id2949014" href="#ftn.id2949014" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
-protection should not do more harm than good. <a class="indexterm" name="id3115769"></a>
+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>There is one</strong></span> more obvious way in which
+this war has harmed innovation—again, a story that will be quite
+familiar to the free market crowd.
</p><p>
Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others. When
done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
-</p><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2949049"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2949058"></a><p>
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. 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="id3115804" href="#ftn.id3115804" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
+<em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2949082" href="#ftn.id2949082" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
</p><p>
-The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id3115840" href="#ftn.id3115840" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
+The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2949119" href="#ftn.id2949119" 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="id3115875" href="#ftn.id3115875" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
+here.<sup>[<a name="id2949162" href="#ftn.id2949162" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id3115936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2949227"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2949237"></a><p>
+
-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
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
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. <a class="indexterm" name="id3115975"></a>
+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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3116027"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2949319"></a><p>
broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
-shackles.<sup>[<a name="id3115550" href="#ftn.id3115550" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
+shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2948783" href="#ftn.id2948783" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This potential for FM radio was never realized—not because Armstrong
was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3116080" href="#ftn.id3116080" 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="id2949374" href="#ftn.id2949374" 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
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="id3116144" href="#ftn.id3116144" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
+year.<sup>[<a name="id2949440" href="#ftn.id2949440" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3116199"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2949498"></a><p>
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
the motive to protect artists against piracy?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3116374"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2949682"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
Real Networks, told me,
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="id
3116409"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2949719"></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="id
3116449"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2949756"></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="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>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="12.3.
Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
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.
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="id3116501" href="#ftn.id3116501" 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="id2949814" href="#ftn.id2949814" 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="id3116134" href="#ftn.id3116134" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
+file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2949430" href="#ftn.id2949430" 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="id2949885"></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="id3116582" href="#ftn.id3116582" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
+were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2949903" href="#ftn.id2949903" 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="id3116599" href="#ftn.id3116599" 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="id2949922" href="#ftn.id2949922" 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="id3116615" href="#ftn.id3116615" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
+that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2949940" href="#ftn.id2949940" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
-regularly violate at least some law. <a class="indexterm" name="id3116637"></a>
-</p><p>
+regularly violate at least some law.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2949964"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
today—can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3116655"></a>
</p><p>
The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was
a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
Burn</span>»</span> capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3116783"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2950107"></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
CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2950178"></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="id2950242"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier Foundation
attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral
damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This is the collateral damage to
-civil liberties generally. <a class="indexterm" name="id3116910"></a>
-</p><p>
+civil liberties generally.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2950285"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
-von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id3116926"></a>
+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
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="id3116983" href="#ftn.id3116983" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
+these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2926666" href="#ftn.id2926666" 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="id3117039" href="#ftn.id3117039" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
+to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2926727" href="#ftn.id2926727" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
(do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules
-that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id3117083" href="#ftn.id3117083" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
+that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2926774" href="#ftn.id2926774" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
network. She can, in some cases, be expelled.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2926852"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2926862"></a><p>
+
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
-Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id3117171"></a>
+Says von Lohmann,
</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
millions being considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain?
Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114930" href="#id3114930" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2948102" href="#id2948102" 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="id3114956"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3114969" href="#id3114969" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
+#37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2948128"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2948141" href="#id2948141" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
-months. <a class="indexterm" name="id3114999"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115038" href="#id3115038" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
+months. <a class="indexterm" name="id2948172"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2948204" href="#id2948204" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
<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.id3115471" href="#id3115471" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2948704" href="#id2948704" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</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 id="ftn.id3115198" href="#id3115198" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2948378" href="#id2948378" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s</span>»</span>,
<em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad
-Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="id3115570"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115704" href="#id3115704" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
+Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2948804"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2948951" href="#id2948951" 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.id3115733" href="#id3115733" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2948981" href="#id2948981" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115756" href="#id3115756" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949014" href="#id2949014" 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.id3115804" href="#id3115804" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949082" href="#id2949082" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
-Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id3115812"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115840" href="#id3115840" 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="id2949090"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949119" href="#id2949119" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2949122"></a> The only circuit court exception is
+found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry Association of America
+(RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180
+F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
+reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player were not liable for
+contributory copyright infringement for a device that is unable to record or
+redistribute music (a device whose only copying function is to render
+portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive). At the
+district court level, the only exception is found in
<em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
1029 (C.D. Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115875" href="#id3115875" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949162" href="#id2949162" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3115878"></a> For example, in July 2002,
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2949166"></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
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="id3115913"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3115919"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3115926"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3115550" href="#id3115550" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
+2003, 33–34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2949202"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2949209"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2949216"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2948783" href="#id2948783" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116080" href="#id3116080" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949374" href="#id2949374" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116144" href="#id3116144" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949440" href="#id2949440" 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
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="id3116180"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3116189"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116501" href="#id3116501" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
+media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2949478"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2949488"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949814" href="#id2949814" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
Pew Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #46</a>. The Pew Internet and
American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
music files from the Internet by early 2001.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116134" href="#id3116134" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949430" href="#id2949430" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
Business.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116582" href="#id3116582" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949903" href="#id2949903" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
no. 2 (1991): 242.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116599" href="#id3116599" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949922" href="#id2949922" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3116615" href="#id3116615" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2949940" href="#id2949940" 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.id3116983" href="#id3116983" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2926666" href="#id2926666" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117039" href="#id3117039" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2926727" href="#id2926727" class="para">177</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.id3117083" href="#id3117083" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2926774" href="#id2926774" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
September 2000, 3D.
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Del IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Del IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
-Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
-sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
-hvordan du slokker den. Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
-bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Part IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Part 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>
langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten. Vi
må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
å lykkes.
-</p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
-In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
-Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
-did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
-New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
-Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
-nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
+</p></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Chapter 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>In 1995</strong></span>, a father was frustrated that his
+daughters didn't seem to like Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one
+such father, but at least one did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired
+computer programmer living in New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the
+Web. An electronic version, Eldred thought, with links to pictures and
+explanatory text, would make this nineteenth-century author's work come
+alive.
</p><p>
It didn't work—at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2951085"></a><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
(<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3117422"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2951134"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2951145"></a><p>
The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the Internet
was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
-groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id3117451" href="#ftn.id3117451" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
+groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2951172" href="#ftn.id2951172" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
-library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, in 1998, for the
+library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, in 1998, for the
eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
copyrights—this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019. Indeed, no
copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3117491"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3117506"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2951230"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2951246"></a><p>
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
-forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3117520" href="#ftn.id3117520" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
+forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2951261" href="#ftn.id2951261" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
Progress</span>»</span>—through means that are also specific— by
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e., copyrights)
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2951360"></a><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
effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
forbids—perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>»</span> as
-Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id3117632"></a>
+Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
</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
Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
-Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3117826" href="#ftn.id3117826" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
+Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2951582" href="#ftn.id2951582" 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="id3117844" href="#ftn.id3117844" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
-reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id3117862" href="#ftn.id3117862" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
+than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2951601" href="#ftn.id2951601" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
+reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2951620" href="#ftn.id2951620" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
-be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
-never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
-thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
-applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
-power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
-constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they
-could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
+<span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious to
+the obvious. Or at least, it need not be. So when I was considering Eldred's
+complaint, this reality about the never-ending incentives to increase the
+copyright term was central to my thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court
+committed to interpreting and applying the Constitution of our framers would
+see that if Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then there
+would be no effective constitutional requirement that terms be
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they could extend it once, they would extend it
+again and again and again.
</p><p>
It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce. A Constitution
designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3117941"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2951707"></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
said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
-arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id3117974" href="#ftn.id3117974" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
+arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2951743" href="#ftn.id2951743" 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="id3118001" href="#ftn.id3118001" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
+v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2951773" href="#ftn.id2951773" 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="id3118021" href="#ftn.id3118021" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2951796" href="#ftn.id2951796" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2951858"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2951867"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2951876"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2951886"></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="id2951905"></a><p>
Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
-domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3118112" href="#ftn.id3118112" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
+domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2951936" href="#ftn.id2951936" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
-pirate's charter. <a class="indexterm" name="id3118137"></a>
+pirate's charter.
</p><p>
As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
</p><p>
-It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
-Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too
-valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
-from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's. Forget
-Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and
-1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
-comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
-not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
+<span class="strong"><strong>It is valuable</strong></span> copyrights that are
+responsible for terms being extended. Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in
+Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too valuable for copyright owners to
+ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright extensions is not
+that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's. Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert
+Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s that have continuing
+commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes not from these
+famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not
+commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
</p><p>
If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through. But the law and its effect were
not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
-generally.<sup>[<a name="id3118182" href="#ftn.id3118182" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
+generally.<sup>[<a name="id2952008" href="#ftn.id2952008" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
have to do?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3118209"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952038"></a><p>
Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
creative works is much more dire.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
3118339"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3118346"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952167"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952174"></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
controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
-films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3118370" href="#ftn.id3118370" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3118392"></a>
+films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2952199" href="#ftn.id2952199" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
$10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
-cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id3118429" href="#ftn.id3118429" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
+cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2952256" href="#ftn.id2952256" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
expires.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3118506"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952338"></a><p>
But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
</p><p>
-Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
-continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
-crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
-creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
-tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free
-expression.</span>»</span>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Of all the</strong></span> creative work produced by
+humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has continuing commercial value. For that
+tiny fraction, the copyright is a crucially important legal device. For that
+tiny fraction, the copyright creates incentives to produce and distribute
+the creative work. For that tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free expression.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3118694"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952537"></a><p>
I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
-value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id3118720" href="#ftn.id3118720" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
+value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2952566" href="#ftn.id2952566" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
-district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
-Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
-that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
-Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that
-extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
+<span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit on
+Eric Eldred's behalf in federal district court in Washington, D.C., asking
+the court to declare the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
+unconstitutional. The two central claims that we made were (1) that
+extending existing terms violated the Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited
+Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that extending terms by another twenty
+years violated the First Amendment.
</p><p>
The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument. A
panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3118799"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952654"></a><p>
The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc. This
time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
</p><p>
-It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
-hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
-the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
-probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
-defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
-supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
-cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
-from my client, Eric Eldred.
+<span class="strong"><strong>It is over</strong></span> a year later as I write these
+words. It is still astonishingly hard. If you know anything at all about
+this story, you know that we lost the appeal. And if you know something more
+than just the minimum, you probably think there was no way this case could
+have been won. After our defeat, I received literally thousands of missives
+by well-wishers and supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this
+noble but doomed cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me
+than the e-mail from my client, Eric Eldred.
</p><p>
Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
burde ha vært vunnet. Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
at vi ikke vant.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3118856"></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
3118878"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3118884"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3118891"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952718"></a><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Feil</strong></span> ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble
+først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær
+advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han
+flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra
+sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter på grunn av sin støtte til oss. De
+ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville
+gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele saken.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952748"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952755"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952761"></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
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="id2952861"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952873"></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,
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="id3119011"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119018"></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="id2952910"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952917"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952923"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952930"></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="id3119047"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119055"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119061"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119068"></a>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2952954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952961"></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. <a class="indexterm" name="id3119081"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119088"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3119096"></a><p>
+National Writers Union.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952975"></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
3119110"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119116"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119122"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119129"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119135"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2952990"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2952997"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953004"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953011"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953018"></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
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2953042"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953055"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953062"></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="id3119171"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119179"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119185"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3119192"></a>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2953098"></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="id3119212"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2953132"></a><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
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3119252" href="#ftn.id3119252" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2953161" href="#ftn.id2953161" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
which defended its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George
Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
-cast.<sup>[<a name="id3119276" href="#ftn.id3119276" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
+cast.<sup>[<a name="id2953187" href="#ftn.id2953187" 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="id3119293"></a>
+help them effect that control.
</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
that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
copyrights—extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
-favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. Between
-February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
-case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3119323"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119338"></a><p>
+favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.
+</p><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there was
+little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the
+strategy.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2953244"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953251"></a><p>
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
Rest.</span>»</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
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
3119365"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953280"></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
3119399"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953330"></a><p>
Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2953346"></a><p>
The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
limited.
</p><p>
-The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
-it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
-from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
-copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
-practice is unconstitutional.
+<span class="strong"><strong>The argument</strong></span> on the government's side
+came down to this: Congress has done it before. It should be allowed to do
+it again. The government claimed that from the very beginning, Congress has
+been extending the term of existing copyrights. So, the government argued,
+the Court should not now say that practice is unconstitutional.
</p><p>
There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
regularly—eleven times in forty years.
</p><p>
-
But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
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
now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
Congress was in a similar cycle of extension. There was no reason it
-couldn't intervene here. Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
-October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
-weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
-to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically practice
-rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
+couldn't intervene here.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>Oral argument</strong></span> was scheduled for the first
+week in October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During
+those two weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had
+volunteered to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically
+practice rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
</p><p>
I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3119526"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3119532"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953484"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953491"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2953498"></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="id3119545"></a>
+of the moot, he let his concern speak:
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
harm—passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3119558"></a><p>
-
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2953518"></a><p>
He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
thing—not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
right thing—not because of politics but because it is right. As I
listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough. Let the
-politicians learn to see that it was also good. The night before the
-argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
-case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
-culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
-proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
-would be assured a seat.
+politicians learn to see that it was also good.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>The night before</strong></span> the argument, a line of
+people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The case had become a
+focus of the press and of the movement to free culture. Hundreds stood in
+line for the chance to see the proceedings. Scores spent the night on the
+Supreme Court steps so that they would be assured a seat.
</p><p>
Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
powers had any limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3119616"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953585"></a><p>
Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening. The history
was bothering her.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
under the copyright laws.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3119694"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953665"></a><p>
That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3119742"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953715"></a><p>
Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
General Olson,
Court to my side.
</p><p>
-As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
-could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
-differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
+<span class="strong"><strong>As I left</strong></span> the court that day, I knew
+there were a hundred points I wished I could remake. There were a hundred
+questions I wished I had answered differently. But one way of thinking about
+this case left me optimistic.
</p><p>
The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
particular, the Conservatives—would feel itself constrained by the
rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
</p><p>
-The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
-missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
-message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
-Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
-justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
+<span class="strong"><strong>The morning</strong></span> of January 15, 2003, I was
+five minutes late to the office and missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the
+Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the message, I could tell in an instant
+that she had bad news to report.The Supreme Court had affirmed the decision
+of the Court of Appeals. Seven justices had voted in the majority. There
+were two dissents.
</p><p>
A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
not even appear in the Court's opinion.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2953835"></a><p>
important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
will respect, that is the system we have.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3119890"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953885"></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
3119909"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953855"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, 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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3119967"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Defeat brings depression</strong></span>. They say it is
+a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger came quickly,
+but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two sorts.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2953969"></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
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
3120029"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2954035"></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
3120071"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2954078"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2954085"></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="id3120082"></a>
+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
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="id2954114"></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. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
-issue should not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id3120116"></a>
+issue should not be raised until it is.
</p><p>
-
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case—a decision I
-had made four years before—was wrong. While the reaction to the Sonny
-Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
-decision was mixed. No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
-extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
-ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
-been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
-thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
-attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
-law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
+had made four years before—was wrong.
+</p><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>While the reaction</strong></span> to the Sonny Bono Act
+itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's decision
+was mixed. No one, at least in the press, tried to say that extending the
+term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over ideas. Where
+the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had been skeptical
+of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good thing, even if
+it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was attacked, it was
+attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful law. <em class="citetitle">The
+New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
images—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
-case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figur 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>). The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
-unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id3120178"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3120199"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figure 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>). The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
+unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2954199"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2954223"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand
experiment</span>»</span> we call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I
Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
have made them see differently.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117451" href="#id3117451" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951172" href="#id2951172" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
-protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117520" href="#id3117520" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
+protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951261" href="#id2951261" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3117526"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3117534"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2951267"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2951276"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117826" href="#id3117826" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951582" href="#id2951582" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years</span>»</span>,
<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117844" href="#id3117844" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951601" href="#id2951601" class="para">182</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.id3117862" href="#id3117862" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951620" href="#id2951620" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars</span>»</span>,
<em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
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.id3117974" href="#id3117974" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951743" href="#id2951743" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118001" href="#id3118001" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951773" href="#id2951773" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
U.S. 598 (2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118021" href="#id3118021" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951796" href="#id2951796" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
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.id3118112" href="#id3118112" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951936" href="#id2951936" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118182" href="#id3118182" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2952008" href="#id2952008" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118370" href="#id3118370" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2952199" href="#id2952199" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118429" href="#id3118429" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2952256" href="#id2952256" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3118720" href="#id3118720" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2952566" href="#id2952566" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory</span>»</span>,
20 December 2002, 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.id3119252" href="#id3119252" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2953161" href="#id2953161" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3119276" href="#id3119276" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2953187" href="#id2953187" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
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>
-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="id3120250"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Chapter 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>The day</strong></span> <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
+decided, fate would have it that I was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The
+day the rehearing petition in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
+denied—meaning the case was really finally over—fate would have
+it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.) This was a
+particularly long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city
+from Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and
+wrote an op-ed piece.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2954295"></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
access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
the content go.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3120316"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2954356"></a><p>
The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3120349"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120356"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2954390"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2954397"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
-before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id3120374" href="#ftn.id3120374" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
+before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2954418" href="#ftn.id2954418" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span>
Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
what's protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3120436"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2954488"></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
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="id3120556"></a>
+take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id2954596"></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
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="id3120650"></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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2954692"></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="id2954717"></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. <a class="indexterm" name="id3120687"></a>
+her.
</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
claim in any case—unless they know about a copyright, they're not
likely to.
</p><p>
-At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
-changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed. In the other,
-common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
-power of the opposition—the power of the side that fought to defend
-the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
-interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
-protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
+<span class="strong"><strong>At the beginning</strong></span> of this book, I told two
+stories about the law reacting to changes in technology. In the one, common
+sense prevailed. In the other, common sense was delayed. The difference
+between the two stories was the power of the opposition—the power of
+the side that fought to defend the status quo. In both cases, a new
+technology threatened old interests. But in only one case did those
+interest's have the power to protect themselves against this new competitive
+threat.
</p><p>
Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
boken har handlet om. For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
resistance.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3120801"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2954848"></a><p>
But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
creation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3120872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3120878"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2954922"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2954928"></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
society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3120374" href="#id3120374" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
-legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
-formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
-author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
-of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
-exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be
-subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition against formalities is
-presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
-Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
-registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
-law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
-repositories, principally the National Museum. Copies of books published in
-the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
-Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
-name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
-Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
-
Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153–54. </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
-Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
-AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten
-millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
-proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere. Viktigere er det at dette er
-17 millioner afrikanere.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2954418" href="#id2954418" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2954424"></a> Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the
+Berne Convention, national copyright legislation sometimes made protection
+depend upon compliance with formalities such as registration, deposit, and
+affixation of notice of the author's claim of copyright. However, starting
+with the 1908 act, every text of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
+enjoyment and the exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition
+against formalities is presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text
+of the Berne Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of
+deposit or registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of
+copyright. French law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works
+in national repositories, principally the National Museum. Copies of books
+published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
+Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
+the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
+works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
+Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
+
153–54. </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Chapter 15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Det er mer</strong></span> enn trettifem millioner
+mennesker over hele verden med AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i
+Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten
+millioner afrikanere er prosentvis proporsjonalt med syv millioner
+amerikanere. Viktigere er det at dette er 17 millioner afrikanere.
</p><p>
Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
sykdommens utvikling. Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
afrikansk stat råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
$15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
-utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id3121002" href="#ftn.id3121002" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
+utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2955064" href="#ftn.id2955064" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
fra India. Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
-europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id3121094" href="#ftn.id3121094" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
+europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id2955157" href="#ftn.id2955157" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika … til å ikke tillate
-tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3117601" href="#ftn.id3117601" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
+tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2951345" href="#ftn.id2951345" 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
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="id3121163" href="#ftn.id3121163" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
+Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2955230" href="#ftn.id2955230" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng. Det er ingen tvil om at
patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
</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="id3121258" href="#ftn.id3121258" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
+eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2955324" href="#ftn.id2955324" 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
tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur—sært, og med konsekvenser mer
alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3121407"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3121486"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3121494"></a><p>
-
-En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
-av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
-idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
-det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem. Så ukritisk
-aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
-spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
-folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk. Blindhet blir vår sunne
-fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
-kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2955482"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2955560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2955571"></a><p>
+
+<span class="strong"><strong>En enkel idé</strong></span> blender oss, og under dekke
+av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt
+med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke
+engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et
+folk som dør uten dem. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til
+kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne
+eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
+demokratisk. Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
+som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
+denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
</p><p>
Så langt sover sunn fornuft. Det er intet opprør. Sunn fornuft ser ennå
ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot. Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
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="id3121568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3121587"></a><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="id3121600" href="#ftn.id3121600" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
-bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende
-prosjekter for å skape goder for felleskapet</span>»</span>. Disse prosjektene som
-hadde lyktes i å produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg
-eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære immaterielle rettigheter. Eksempler
-inkluderer internettet og verdensveven, begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag
-av protokoller i allemannseie. Det hadde med en begynnende trend for å
-støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og inkluderte Public Library of
-Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i etterordet. Det inkluderte et
-prosjekt for a utvikle enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få
-stor betydning i biomedisinsk forskning. (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av
-et konsortium av Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper,
-inkludert Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers
-Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis,
-Pfizer, og Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald
-Reagen frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet. Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen
-kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3121693"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3121702"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3121708"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3121716"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2955658"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2955667"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2955674"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2955681"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2955688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2955696"></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="id2955727" href="#ftn.id2955727" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
+med interressenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for
+felleskapet</span>»</span>. Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å produsere goder
+for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære
+immaterielle rettigheter. Eksempler inkluderer internettet og verdensveven,
+begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag av protokoller i allemannseie. Det hadde
+med en begynnende trend for å støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og
+inkluderte Public Library of Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i
+etterordet. Det inkluderte et prosjekt for a utvikle
+enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få stor betydning i
+biomedisinsk forskning. (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av et konsortium av
+Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper, inkludert
+Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
+Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
+Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
+frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet. Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og
+fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2955825"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2955835"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2955841"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2955850"></a><p>
Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
</p><p>
Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
-ideell.<sup>[<a name="id3121741" href="#ftn.id3121741" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2955878" href="#ftn.id2955878" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak
vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
</p><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
så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde. Og dermed
møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
fellesgoder</span>»</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2955965"></a><p>
Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
programvare</span>»</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare</span>»</span>, til sine egne interne
behov.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2956002"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956011"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956017"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956024"></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
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="id3121883" href="#ftn.id3121883" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3121941"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3121948"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3121956"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3121962"></a>
-</p><p>
+å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2956059" href="#ftn.id2956059" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2956120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956128"></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
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2956183"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956189"></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="id3122036" href="#ftn.id3122036" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
-møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id3122054"></a>
+slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2956219" href="#ftn.id2956219" 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="id2956253"></a><p>
Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
møtet. Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
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="id2956312"></a><p>
For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt? Som jeg fikk
kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2956350"></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
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. <a class="indexterm" name="id3122194"></a>
-</p><p>
+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
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="id
3122252"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122259"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2956463"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956469"></a><p>
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
-vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3122271" href="#ftn.id3122271" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
+vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2956482" href="#ftn.id2956482" 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
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2956573"></a><p>
Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen. I
stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
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="id3122429"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122437"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122443"></a><p>
-Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. Det finnes
-øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
-mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
-medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
-partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
-organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
-Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
-endringen i FCC-reglene. Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
-krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.
+</p><p>
+Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2956663"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956670"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956676"></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 fiendtlige høringene som ledet
</p><p>
Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
for våre tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122563"></a><p>
-Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
-at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id3122576" href="#ftn.id3122576" 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="id3122640" href="#ftn.id3122640" 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="id3122663" href="#ftn.id3122663" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på
-innsiden i Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli
-anonym—rapporterer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.
-De har fantastisk [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan
-de ikke på grunn av at de først må klarere rettighetene. De har hauger med
-ungdommer som kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først
-kreve hauger med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>.
-Kongressrepresentanter snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta
-ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven. Universiteter truer med å utvise
-ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3122708"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122715"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122721"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122727"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122734"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3122740"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2956805"></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="id2956823" href="#ftn.id2956823" 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="id2956892" href="#ftn.id2956892" 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="id2956917" href="#ftn.id2956917" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
+Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym—rapporterer
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene. De har fantastisk
+[gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn
+av at de først må klarere rettighetene. De har hauger med ungdommer som
+kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først kreve hauger
+med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>. Kongressrepresentanter
+snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som
+antas å bryte loven. Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker
+en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2956964"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956970"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956977"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956983"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956990"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2956997"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2957004"></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="id3122758" href="#ftn.id3122758" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
+ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2957027" href="#ftn.id2957027" 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="id3122782" href="#ftn.id3122782" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk
+landet.<sup>[<a name="id2957052" href="#ftn.id2957052" 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
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121002" href="#id3121002" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2955064" href="#id2955064" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
#55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
utviklingsland dem de trenger—og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121094" href="#id3121094" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2955157" href="#id2955157" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
-37. <a class="indexterm" name="id3121104"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3121112"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3117601" href="#id3117601" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
+37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2955167"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2955177"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2951345" href="#id2951345" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
July 1999), 150–57 (statement of James Love).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121163" href="#id3121163" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2955230" href="#id2955230" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
-Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121258" href="#id3121258" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2955324" href="#id2955324" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
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.id3121600" href="#id3121600" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2955727" href="#id2955727" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>,
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
#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.id3121741" href="#id3121741" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2955878" href="#id2955878" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3121883" href="#id3121883" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2956059" href="#id2956059" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
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.id3122036" href="#id3122036" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2956219" href="#id2956219" class="para">203</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.id3122271" href="#id3122271" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2956482" href="#id2956482" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
-210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id3121157"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3122576" href="#id3122576" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2955224"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2956823" href="#id2956823" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
<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.id3122640" href="#id3122640" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2956892" href="#id2956892" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old
Lady</span>»</span>, mtv.com, 17. september 2003, 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.id3122663" href="#id3122663" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2956917" href="#id2956917" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
Dylan Songs</span>»</span>, Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3122758" href="#id3122758" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2957027" href="#id2957027" class="para">208</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.id3122782" href="#id3122782" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2957052" href="#id2957052" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
<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>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Chapter 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Chapter 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
-I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
-noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder. Balansen i denne boken
-kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
+<span class="strong"><strong>I hvert fall</strong></span> noen av de som har lest helt
+hit vil være enig med meg om at noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi
+holder. Balansen i denne boken kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
</p><p>
Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
krever hjelp fra lovgiverne. Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
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>
-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><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>Common sense</strong></span> is with the copyright
+warriors because the debate so far has been framed at the extremes—as
+a grand either/or: either property or anarchy, either total control or
+artists won't be paid. If that really is the choice, then the warriors
+should win.
</p><p>
The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
for granted before.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.1.1.
Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.1.1.
Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="browsing"></a><p>
If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
</p><p>
Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
</p><p>
-Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, your privacy was
+Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. 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
(there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in
many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3123052"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2957365"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2957372"></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
viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
-protected by the friction disappears, too. <a class="indexterm" name="id3123076"></a>
+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
then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2957413"></a><p>
It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
-for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id3123109" href="#ftn.id3123109" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
+for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2957436" href="#ftn.id2957436" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
commercially, the software—both the source code and the
binaries— was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
-about controlling their software. <a class="indexterm" name="id3123150"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3123162"></a><p>
+about controlling their software. <a class="indexterm" name="id2957478"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2957490"></a><p>
Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
share software would be fundamentally weakened.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3123219"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2957548"></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="id3123241"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3123247"></a>
+produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2957570"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2957577"></a>
</p><p>
Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
-inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id3123370"></a>
+inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2957702"></a>
</p><p>
This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets. There's no
their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
competition in our tradition is presumptively a good—especially when
it helps spread knowledge and science.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3123381"></a></div><div class="section" title="16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2957715"></a></div><div class="section" title="16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3123429"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2957765"></a><p>
Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2957848"></a><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
movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content
conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the
public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
-domain to other creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id3123526"></a>
+domain to other creativity.
</p><p>
The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The
aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them—are
needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
those rules.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline2"></a><p>
Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2957944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2957951"></a><p>
+
The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3123601"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3123609"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3123617"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123623"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3123629"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2957976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2957988"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2957994"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2958001"></a><p>
These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
(Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
-are so high<sup>[<a name="id3123662" href="#ftn.id3123662" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
+are so high<sup>[<a name="id2958034" href="#ftn.id2958034" 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>
to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3123736"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2. Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
-We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
-take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
-politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms. But
-that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
-we need.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2958112"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2. Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> not reclaim a free culture by
+individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We
+have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and
+implement these reforms. But that also means that we have time to build
+awareness around the changes that we need.
</p><p>
In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
end.
-</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>
+</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>
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
</p><p>
Why?
</p><p>
-As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
+As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
</p><p>
-The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id3123843" href="#ftn.id3123843" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
+The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2958236" href="#ftn.id2958236" 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>
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="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>
+</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>
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
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="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>
+</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>
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
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="id3123970" href="#ftn.id3123970" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
+permission.<sup>[<a name="id2958364" href="#ftn.id2958364" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>»</span> If
someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2958411"></a><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
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="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>
+</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.
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="id3124104" href="#ftn.id3124104" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
+fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2958508" href="#ftn.id2958508" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
</p><p>
I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
håndtere.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2958618"></a><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="id3124225" href="#ftn.id3124225" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
+for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2958637" href="#ftn.id2958637" 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="id3124246"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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="id3124343"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3124350"></a><p>
+</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="id2958733"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2958740"></a><p>
As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2958784"></a><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="id3124402" href="#ftn.id3124402" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
+dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2958796" href="#ftn.id2958796" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
-Benjamin Kaplan. <a class="indexterm" name="id3124417"></a>
+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="id3124433" href="#ftn.id3124433" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
+abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2958821" href="#ftn.id2958821" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
-after the creative work is done. <a class="indexterm" name="id3124472"></a>
+after the creative work is done. <a class="indexterm" name="id2958852"></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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3124505"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2958884"></a><p>
This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
derivative rights—turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
</p><p>
In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
the presumption should be that other uses are not protected. This is the
-reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id3124528" href="#ftn.id3124528" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
+reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2958907" href="#ftn.id2958907" 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
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="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>
+</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>
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
</p><p>
File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
-all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, they enable four
+all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, they enable four
different kinds of sharing:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
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>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2959064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959073"></a><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
actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
weakened.
</p><p>
-As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For
+As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For
the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
desert or the Rockies—you can instantaneously be connected to the
Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3124736"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2959135"></a><p>
In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
you access to content on the fly—such as Internet radio, content that
is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
-Web.<sup>[<a name="id3124792" href="#ftn.id3124792" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
+Web.<sup>[<a name="id2959189" href="#ftn.id2959189" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
artist.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2959268"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959276"></a><p>
Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
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>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpromisestokeepfisher"></a><p>
The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
-Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id3124978" href="#ftn.id3124978" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
+Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2959407" href="#ftn.id2959407" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
(1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3125179"></a><p>
+</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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3125206"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2959626"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959637"></a><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
do with the content itself.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3125231"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2959659"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959679"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959686"></a><p>
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3125274"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2959720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959726"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959743"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959752"></a><p>
This competition has already occurred against the background of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
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="section" title="16.2.5.
5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.5.
5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
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,
ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
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="id2959971"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2959978"></a><p>
Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene. Jeg er angrepet som en
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
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="id3125511" href="#ftn.id3125511" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
+åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2960009" href="#ftn.id2960009" 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="id3125550" href="#ftn.id3125550" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
+lav.<sup>[<a name="id2960047" href="#ftn.id2960047" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id
3125651"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2960148"></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
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.id3123109" href="#id3123109" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2957436" href="#id2957436" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
<em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
-technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3123662" href="#id3123662" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
+technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2958034" href="#id2958034" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3123843" href="#id3123843" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2958236" href="#id2958236" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
-by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3123970" href="#id3123970" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
+by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2958364" href="#id2958364" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124104" href="#id3124104" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2958508" href="#id2958508" class="para">214</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.id3124225" href="#id3124225" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2958637" href="#id2958637" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124402" href="#id3124402" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2958796" href="#id2958796" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124433" href="#id3124433" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2958821" href="#id2958821" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124528" href="#id3124528" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2958907" href="#id2958907" 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="id3123124"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3124792" href="#id3124792" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
+187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="id2957451"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2959189" href="#id2959189" 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.id3124978" href="#id3124978" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2959407" href="#id2959407" 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
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="id3125135"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3125142"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3125149"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id3125156"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3125511" href="#id3125511" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
+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="id2959562"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2959569"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2959576"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2959583"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2960009" href="#id2960009" 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.id3125550" href="#id3125550" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2960047" href="#id2960047" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon—to ganger. I starten
-predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade. Han
+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
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="id3125526"></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>
+<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76. <a class="indexterm" name="id2960024"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Chapter 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Chapter 17. 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="
Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
Chapter 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Chapter 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3125798"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2960301"></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
på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
hatt rett. Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
-</p></div><div class="index" title="Inde
ks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3125929"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Adromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internett-arkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3097910">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3097910">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3097910">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3097910">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3097910">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedskonsentrasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id3097910">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>veteranpensjoner, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3097910">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>
+</p></div><div class="index" title="Inde
x"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2960434"></a>Index</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><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>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>allemannseie (public domain)</dt><dd><dl><dt>definert, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <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></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>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>animasjonsfilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>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>(see also Internett-arkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: 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="#id2928792">«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>avledede verker</dt><dd><dl><dt>piratvirksomhet vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</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">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>biler, MP3-lydsystem i, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>biomedisinsk forskning, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bitiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>blogger (Web-logger), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>Engelsk opphavsrettslov utviklet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>gratis online-utgivelser av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>selge på nytt, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tre typer bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bokselgere, Engelske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>bot-er, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>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>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</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>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</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>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <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="#id2928792">«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>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>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>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on 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>animert, <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></dl></dd><dt>filmindustri</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Første grunnlovstillegg, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</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> tillatelseskultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>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>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></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="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Grunnloven i USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Første tillegg til, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>internet</dt><dd><dl><dt> effektiv innholdsdistribusjon på, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>utviklingen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>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>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«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>jurysystem, <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">Constraining Innovators</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">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>kreativ eiendel</dt><dd><dl><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien om, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kreativitet</dt><dd><dl><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>juridiske begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>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">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><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>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiveringsfunksjon for, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>loven</dt><dd><dl><dt>databaser med saksrapporter om, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</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">Constraining Innovators</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="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedskonsentrasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>eierskapskonsentrasjon i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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>international software piracy of, <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>Windows-operativsystemet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <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>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>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></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>musikkpublisering, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>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></dt><dt>noteark, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>opphavsrett</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</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="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>opphavsrettslov</dt><dd><dl><dt>Engelsk, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</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="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>som beskyttelse for skapere, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><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="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>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></dt><dt>i Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>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>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>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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 spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>rap music, <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></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id2928792">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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 Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998)</dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <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>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</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>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><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">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>tegneserier, japanske, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>televisjon</dt><dd><dl><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><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>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Tysk opphavsrettslov, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>veteranpensjoner, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>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>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <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="#id2928792">«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