<!-- PAGE BREAK 4 -->
<!-- PAGE BREAK 5 -->
<!-- PAGE BREAK 6 -->
-<colophon>
-<para>
-THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street New
-York, New York
-</para>
-<para>
-Copyright © Lawrence Lessig. All rights reserved.
-</para>
-<para>
-Excerpt from an editorial titled <quote>The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity,</quote>
-<citetitle>The New York Times</citetitle>, January 16, 2003. Copyright
-© 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with permission.
-</para>
-<para>
-Cartoon in <xref linkend="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"/> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
-Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
-</para>
-<para>
-Diagram in <xref linkend="fig-1761-pattern-modern-media-ownership"/> courtesy of the office of FCC
-Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
-</para>
-<para>
-Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
-</para>
-<para>
-Lessig, Lawrence.
-Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law to lock down
-culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
-</para>
-<para>
-p. cm.
-</para>
-<para>
-Includes index.
-</para>
-<para>
-ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
-</para>
-
-<para>
-1. Intellectual property—United States. 2. Mass media—United States.
-</para>
-<para>
-3. Technological innovations—United States. 4. Art—United States. I. Title.
-</para>
-<para>
-KF2979.L47
-</para>
-<para>
-343.7309'9—dc22
-</para>
-<para>
-This book is printed on acid-free paper.
-</para>
-<para>
-Printed in the United States of America
-</para>
-<para>
-1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
-</para>
-<para>
-Designed by Marysarah Quinn
-</para>
-
-<para>
-&translationblock;
-</para>
-
-<para>
-Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of
-this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a
-retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means
-(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise),
-without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and
-the above publisher of this book.
-</para>
-<para>
-The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the
-Internet or via any other means without the permission of the
-publisher is illegal and punishable by law. Please purchase only
-authorized electronic editions and do not participate in or encourage
-electronic piracy of copyrighted materials. Your support of the
-author's rights is appreciated.
-</para>
-</colophon>
-
<!-- PAGE BREAK 7 -->
<dedication><title></title>
<para>
rights.<footnote><para>
<!-- f4 -->
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on
-S. 6330 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th
+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 <citetitle>Legislative History of the
Copyright Act</citetitle>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
<!-- f10 -->
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
+H.R. 11794 Before the (Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st
sess., 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted
in <citetitle>Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</citetitle>, E. Fulton Brylawski and
Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
statutory licensing, they don't have to pay the copyright owner for
the content they sell.
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>Bernstein, Leonard</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>books</primary><secondary>out of print</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Bernstein, Leonard</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxinternetbookson' class='startofrange'><primary>Internet</primary><secondary>books on</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used
record stores. It is different, of course, because the person making
shut as well?
</para>
<indexterm id='idxbooksfreeonline1' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>free on-line releases of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Doctorow, Cory</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable
type D sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners
efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
unavailable?</quote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxinternetbookson' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this
chapter, much of the <quote>piracy</quote> that file sharing enables is plainly
<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxcabletv2' class='endofrange'/>
-<indexterm><primary>Betamax</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm
id='idxbetamax' class='startofrange'><primary>Betamax</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm id='idxcassettevcrs1' class='startofrange'><primary>cassette recording</primary><secondary>VCRs</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major
of Jack Valenti).
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxbetamax' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme
Court. In the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Doug Herrick, <quote>Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
the Library of Congress,</quote> <citetitle>Film Library Quarterly</citetitle> 13 nos. 2–3
(1980): 5; Anthony Slide, <citetitle>Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film
-Preservation in the United States</citetitle> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &
+Preservation in the United States</citetitle> (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &
Co., 1992), 36.
</para></footnote>
</para>
<emphasis>for the purpose of</emphasis> protecting the railroads?
Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
weakened the <quote>stickiness</quote> of television advertising (if a boring
-commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and it
+commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf), and it
may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to
reinforce commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function
owned by separate media companies. Now, the media is increasingly
owned by only a few companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC
announced in June 2003, most expect that within a few years, we will
-live in a world where just three companies control more than percent
+live in a world where just three companies control more than 85 percent
of the media.
</para>
<para>
framers sought to protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well
protected— by the market.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Fallows, James</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious
change is in the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows
put it in a recent article about Rupert Murdoch,
-<indexterm><primary>Fallows, James</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
these issues.
</para>
<indexterm id='idxadvertising3' class='startofrange'><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcommercials' class='startofrange'><primary>commercials</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxtelevisionadvertisingon' class='startofrange'><primary>television</primary><secondary>advertising on</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched
a media campaign as part of the <quote>war on drugs.</quote> The campaign produced
the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your
message will be heard then?
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>First Amendment to</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>First Amendment</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Supreme Court, U.S.</primary><secondary>on television advertising bans</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>television</primary><secondary>controversy avoided by</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
<quote>controversial</quote> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
opportunity to present its case. And the courts will defend the
rights of the stations to be this biased.<footnote><para>
<!-- f34 -->
+<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Comcast</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Marijuana Policy Project</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>NBC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>WJOA</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>WRC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads
that directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within
the Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <quote>against
agreed to run the ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided
not to run the ads and returned the collected fees. Interview with
Neal Levine, 15 October 2003. These restrictions are, of course, not
-limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, <quote>On the Issue of
-an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV Networks,</quote> <citetitle>New
-York Times</citetitle>, 13 March 2003, C4. Outside of election-related air time
-there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to
-even the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <quote>Ad
-Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
-Radio,</quote> <citetitle>Yale Law and Policy Review</citetitle> 6 (1988): 449–79, and for a
-more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the courts, see
-<citetitle>Radio-Television News Directors Association</citetitle> v. <citetitle>FCC</citetitle>, 184 F. 3d 872
+limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, <quote>On the
+Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV
+Networks,</quote> <citetitle>New York Times</citetitle>, 13 March
+2003, C4. Outside of election-related air time there is very little
+that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even the playing
+field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <quote>Ad Hoc Access:
+The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
+Radio,</quote> <citetitle>Yale Law and Policy Review</citetitle> 6
+(1988): 449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of
+the FCC and the courts, see <citetitle>Radio-Television News Directors
+Association</citetitle> v. <citetitle>FCC</citetitle>, 184 F. 3d 872
(D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as
the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San
Francisco transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni
-diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, <quote>Antidiesel Group Fuming
-After Muni Rejects Ad,</quote> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #32</ulink>. The ground
-was that the criticism was <quote>too controversial.</quote>
-<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Comcast</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Marijuana Policy Project</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>NBC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>WJOA</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>WRC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
+diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, <quote>Antidiesel Group
+Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad,</quote> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003,
+available at <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link
+#32</ulink>. The ground was that the criticism was <quote>too
+controversial.</quote>
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcommercials' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxtelevisionadvertisingon' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived
in a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the
notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all
property rights<footnote><para>
<!-- f36 -->
+<indexterm><primary>legal realist movement</primary></indexterm>
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, <quote>The
Disintegration of Property,</quote> in <citetitle>Nomos XXII: Property</citetitle>, J. Roland
Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University
Press, 1980).
-<indexterm><primary>legal realist movement</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>)
has been crafted to balance the important need to give authors and
artists incentives with the equally important need to assure access to
limits on the scope of the interests protected by <quote>property.</quote> The very
birth of <quote>copyright</quote> as a statutory right recognized those limits, by
granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
-story of chapter 6). The tradition of <quote>fair use</quote> is animated by a
-similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
-exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of
-chapter 7). Adding
+story of chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="founders"/>). The tradition of <quote>fair use</quote> is
+animated by a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the
+costs of exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the
+story of chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="recorders"/>). Adding
<!-- PAGE BREAK 184 -->
statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
-familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter
-8). And granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect,
-claims of property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing
-the soul of a culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets,
-are built with property. But the nature of the property that builds a
-free culture is very different from the extremist vision that
-dominates the debate today.
+familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter <xref
+xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="transformers"/>). And
+granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
+property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul
+of a culture (chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="collectors"/>). Free cultures, like free markets, are built
+with property. But the nature of the property that builds a free
+culture is very different from the extremist vision that dominates the
+debate today.
</para>
<para>
Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In
proliferate. It is impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed
and what's not, and at the same time, the penalties for crossing the
line are astonishingly harsh. The four students who were threatened
-by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3 was just one) were threatened
-with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search 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
+by the RIAA (Jesse Jordan of chapter <xref xrefstyle="select:
+labelnumber" linkend="catalogs"/> was just one) were threatened with a
+$98 billion lawsuit for building search 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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f1. -->
See Lynne W. Jeter, <citetitle>Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom</citetitle>
But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.
Indeed, it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme
promarket ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special
-one at that, 188 pages into a book like this), then you can see this
-other aspect by substituting <quote>free market</quote> every place I've spoken of
-<quote>free culture.</quote> The point is the same, even if the interests
-affecting culture are more fundamental.
+one at that, <xref xrefstyle="select: pagenumber"
+linkend="innovators"/> pages into a book like this), then you
+can see this other aspect by substituting <quote>free market</quote>
+every place I've spoken of <quote>free culture.</quote> The point is
+the same, even if the interests affecting culture are more
+fundamental.
</para>
<para>
The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the
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
+its development, its cofounder (John Hummer), and general partner
(Hank Barry).<footnote><para>
<!-- f4. -->
See Joseph Menn, <quote>Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</quote> <citetitle>Los Angeles
competition. Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this
kind of competition. The effect is to produce an overregulated
culture, just as the effect of too much control in the market is to
-produce an overregulatedregulated market.
+produce an overregulated-regulated market.
</para>
<para>
The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is
<indexterm><primary>Digital Copyright (Litman)</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Litman, Jessica</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
-overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10 details,
+overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="property-i"/> 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
here.<footnote><para>
<!-- f11. -->
<indexterm><primary>Tauzin, Billy</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Berman, Howard L.</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Hollings, Fritz</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>broadcast flag</primary></indexterm>
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
Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</quote> 27 June 2003, 33–34,
available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #44</ulink>.
-<indexterm><primary>Berman, Howard L.</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Hollings, Fritz</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>broadcast flag</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
But there is one example that captures the flavor of them all. This is
the story of the demise of Internet radio.
it gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free
<!-- PAGE BREAK 239 -->
-Software Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux
+Software Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/Linux
possible). They included a powerful brief about the costs of
uncertainty by Intel. There were two law professors' briefs, one by
copyright scholars and one by First Amendment scholars. There was an
</chapter>
<index></index>
+<colophon>
+<para>
+THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street New
+York, New York
+</para>
+<para>
+Copyright © Lawrence Lessig. All rights reserved.
+</para>
+<para>
+Excerpt from an editorial titled <quote>The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity,</quote>
+<citetitle>The New York Times</citetitle>, January 16, 2003. Copyright
+© 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with permission.
+</para>
+<para>
+Cartoon in <xref linkend="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"/> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
+Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
+</para>
+<para>
+Diagram in <xref linkend="fig-1761-pattern-modern-media-ownership"/> courtesy of the office of FCC
+Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
+</para>
+<para>
+Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
+</para>
+<para>
+Lessig, Lawrence.
+Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law to lock down
+culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
+</para>
+<para>
+p. cm.
+</para>
+<para>
+Includes index.
+</para>
+<para>
+ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
+</para>
+
+<para>
+1. Intellectual property—United States. 2. Mass media—United States.
+</para>
+<para>
+3. Technological innovations—United States. 4. Art—United States. I. Title.
+</para>
+<para>
+KF2979.L47
+</para>
+<para>
+343.7309'9—dc22
+</para>
+<para>
+This book is printed on acid-free paper.
+</para>
+<para>
+Printed in the United States of America
+</para>
+<para>
+1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
+</para>
+<para>
+Designed by Marysarah Quinn
+</para>
+
+<para>
+&translationblock;
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of
+this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a
+retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means
+(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise),
+without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and
+the above publisher of this book.
+</para>
+<para>
+The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the
+Internet or via any other means without the permission of the
+publisher is illegal and punishable by law. Please purchase only
+authorized electronic editions and do not participate in or encourage
+electronic piracy of copyrighted materials. Your support of the
+author's rights is appreciated.
+</para>
+</colophon>
</book>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff