</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
-Pogue was skeptical of the core argument of the book—that
- software,
-or "code," functioned as a kind of law—and his review suggested
-the happy thought that if life in cyberspace got bad, we could always
-"drizzle, drazzle, druzzle, drome"-like simply flip a switch and be back
-home. Turn off the modem, unplug the computer, and any troubles
-that exist in that space wouldn't "affect" us anymore.
+Pogue was skeptical of the core argument of the book—that
+software, or "code," functioned as a kind of law—and his review
+suggested the happy thought that if life in cyberspace got bad, we
+could always "drizzle, drazzle, druzzle, drome"-like simply flip a
+switch and be back home. Turn off the modem, unplug the computer, and
+any troubles that exist in that space wouldn't "affect" us anymore.
</para>
<para>
Pogue might have been right in 1999—I'm skeptical, but maybe.
much less transmitter power and static.
</para>
<para>
-On November 5, 1935, he demonstrated the technology at a meeting
-of the Institute of Radio Engineers at the Empire State Building in
-New York City. He tuned his radio dial across a range of AM stations,
-until the radio locked on a broadcast that he had arranged from
- seventeen
-miles away. The radio fell totally silent, as if dead, and then with a
-clarity no one else in that room had ever heard from an electrical
- device,
-it produced the sound of an announcer's voice: "This is amateur
-station W2AG at Yonkers, New York, operating on frequency
- modulation
-at two and a half meters."
+On November 5, 1935, he demonstrated the technology at a meeting of
+the Institute of Radio Engineers at the Empire State Building in New
+York City. He tuned his radio dial across a range of AM stations,
+until the radio locked on a broadcast that he had arranged from
+seventeen miles away. The radio fell totally silent, as if dead, and
+then with a clarity no one else in that room had ever heard from an
+electrical device, it produced the sound of an announcer's voice:
+"This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New York, operating on
+frequency modulation at two and a half meters."
</para>
<para>
The audience was hearing something no one had thought possible:
<blockquote>
<para>
A glass of water was poured before the microphone in Yonkers; it
-sounded like a glass of water being poured. . . . A paper was
-crumpled and torn; it sounded like paper and not like a crackling
-forest fire. . . . Sousa marches were played from records and a
- piano
-solo and guitar number were performed. . . . The music was
-projected with a live-ness rarely if ever heard before from a radio
-"music box."<footnote><para>
+sounded like a glass of water being poured. . . . A paper was crumpled
+and torn; it sounded like paper and not like a crackling forest
+fire. . . . Sousa marches were played from records and a piano solo
+and guitar number were performed. . . . The music was projected with a
+live-ness rarely if ever heard before from a radio "music
+box."<footnote><para>
Lawrence Lessing, Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong
(Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
</para></footnote>
</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
-As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a
-vastly superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention,
- Armstrong
-was working for RCA. RCA was the dominant player in the
-then dominant AM radio market. By 1935, there were a thousand radio
-stations across the United States, but the stations in large cities were all
-owned by a handful of networks.
+As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly
+superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Armstrong
+was working for RCA. RCA was the dominant player in the then dominant
+AM radio market. By 1935, there were a thousand radio stations across
+the United States, but the stations in large cities were all owned by
+a handful of networks.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 20 -->
</para>
<para>
<blockquote>
<para>
I thought Armstrong would invent some kind of a filter to remove
-static from our AM radio. I didn't think he'd start a revolution—
-start up a whole damn new industry to compete with RCA.<footnote><para>
-See "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," First
- Electronic
-Church of America, at www.webstationone.com/fecha, available at
+static from our AM radio. I didn't think he'd start a
+revolution— start up a whole damn new industry to compete with
+RCA.<footnote><para> See "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the
+Electronic Era," First Electronic Church of America, at
+www.webstationone.com/fecha, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #1</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
to themselves, would crumble in
<!-- PAGE BREAK 22 -->
another, are sustained through this subtle corruption of our political
-process. RCA had what the Causbys did not: the power to stifle the
- effect
-of technological change.
+process. RCA had what the Causbys did not: the power to stifle the
+effect of technological change.
</para>
<para>
-There's no single inventor of the Internet. Nor is there any good
-date upon which to mark its birth. Yet in a very short time, the
- Internet
+There's no single inventor of the Internet. Nor is there any good date
+upon which to mark its birth. Yet in a very short time, the Internet
has become part of ordinary American life. According to the Pew
-Internet and American Life Project, 58 percent of Americans had
- access
-
to the Internet in 2002, up from 49 percent two years before.<footnote><para>
-Amanda Lenhart, "The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look
-at Internet Access and the Digital Divide," Pew Internet and American
-Life Project, 15 April 2003: 6, available at
+Internet and American Life Project, 58 percent of Americans had access
+to the Internet in 2002, up from 49 percent two years
+before.<footnote><para>
+Amanda Lenhart, "The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
+Internet Access and the Digital Divide," Pew Internet and American
+Life Project, 15 April 2003: 6, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #2</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
That number could well exceed two thirds of the nation by the end
the Internet. But this is not a book about the Internet.
</para>
<para>
-Instead, this book is about an effect of the Internet beyond the
- Internet
-itself: an effect upon how culture is made. My claim is that the
-Internet has induced an important and unrecognized change in that
-process. That change will radically transform a tradition that is as old as
-the Republic itself. Most, if they recognized this change, would reject
-it. Yet most don't even see the change that the Internet has introduced.
+Instead, this book is about an effect of the Internet beyond the
+Internet itself: an effect upon how culture is made. My claim is that
+the Internet has induced an important and unrecognized change in that
+process. That change will radically transform a tradition that is as
+old as the Republic itself. Most, if they recognized this change,
+would reject it. Yet most don't even see the change that the Internet
+has introduced.
</para>
<para>
We can glimpse a sense of this change by distinguishing between
-commercial and noncommercial culture, and by mapping the law's
- regulation
-of each. By "commercial culture" I mean that part of our culture
-that is produced and sold or produced to be sold. By "noncommercial
-culture" I mean all the rest. When old men sat around parks or on
+commercial and noncommercial culture, and by mapping the law's
+regulation of each. By "commercial culture" I mean that part of our
+culture that is produced and sold or produced to be sold. By
+"noncommercial culture" I mean all the rest. When old men sat around
+parks or on
<!-- PAGE BREAK 23 -->
street corners telling stories that kids and others consumed, that was
-noncommercial culture. When Noah Webster published his "Reader,"
-or Joel Barlow his poetry, that was commercial culture.
+noncommercial culture. When Noah Webster published his "Reader," or
+Joel Barlow his poetry, that was commercial culture.
</para>
<para>
At the beginning of our history, and for just about the whole of our
tradition, noncommercial culture was essentially unregulated. Of
-course, if your stories were lewd, or if your song disturbed the peace,
-then the law might intervene. But the law was never directly concerned
-with the creation or spread of this form of culture, and it left this
- culture
-"free." The ordinary ways in which ordinary individuals shared and
-transformed their culture—telling stories, reenacting scenes from plays
-or TV, participating in fan clubs, sharing music, making tapes—were
-left alone by the law.
+course, if your stories were lewd, or if your song disturbed the
+peace, then the law might intervene. But the law was never directly
+concerned with the creation or spread of this form of culture, and it
+left this culture "free." The ordinary ways in which ordinary
+individuals shared and transformed their culture—telling
+stories, reenacting scenes from plays or TV, participating in fan
+clubs, sharing music, making tapes—were left alone by the law.
</para>
<para>
The focus of the law was on commercial creativity. At first slightly,
198–200.
<indexterm><primary>Brandeis, Louis D.</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
-This is also, of
-course, an important part of creativity and culture, and it has become
-an increasingly important part in America. But in no sense was it
- dominant
-within our tradition. It was instead just one part, a controlled
-part, balanced with the free.
+This is also, of course, an important part of creativity and culture,
+and it has become an increasingly important part in America. But in no
+sense was it dominant within our tradition. It was instead just one
+part, a controlled part, balanced with the free.
</para>
<para>
This rough divide between the free and the controlled has now
See Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (New York: Prometheus Books,
2001), ch. 13.
</para></footnote>
-The Internet has set the stage for this erasure and,
-pushed by big media, the law has now affected it. For the first time in
-our tradition, the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share
-culture fall within the reach of the regulation of the law, which has
- expanded
-to draw within its control a vast amount of culture and
- creativity
-that it never reached before. The technology that preserved the
-balance of our history—between uses of our culture that were free and
-uses of our culture that were only upon permission—has been undone.
-The consequence is that we are less and less a free culture, more and
-more a permission culture.
+The Internet has set the stage for this erasure and, pushed by big
+media, the law has now affected it. For the first time in our
+tradition, the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share
+culture fall within the reach of the regulation of the law, which has
+expanded to draw within its control a vast amount of culture and
+creativity that it never reached before. The technology that preserved
+the balance of our history—between uses of our culture that were
+free and uses of our culture that were only upon permission—has
+been undone. The consequence is that we are less and less a free
+culture, more and more a permission culture.
</para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 24 -->
<para>
-This change gets justified as necessary to protect commercial
- creativity.
-And indeed, protectionism is precisely its motivation. But the
-protectionism that justifies the changes that I will describe below is not
-the limited and balanced sort that has defined the law in the past. This
-is not a protectionism to protect artists. It is instead a protectionism
-to protect certain forms of business. Corporations threatened by the
-potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and
-noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce
-lawmakers to use the law to protect them. It is the story of RCA and
-Armstrong; it is the dream of the Causbys.
+This change gets justified as necessary to protect commercial
+creativity. And indeed, protectionism is precisely its
+motivation. But the protectionism that justifies the changes that I
+will describe below is not the limited and balanced sort that has
+defined the law in the past. This is not a protectionism to protect
+artists. It is instead a protectionism to protect certain forms of
+business. Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to
+change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and
+shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect
+them. It is the story of RCA and Armstrong; it is the dream of the
+Causbys.
</para>
<para>
For the Internet has unleashed an extraordinary possibility for many
-to participate in the process of building and cultivating a culture that
-reaches far beyond local boundaries. That power has changed the
- marketplace
-for making and cultivating culture generally, and that change
-in turn threatens established content industries. The Internet is thus to
-the industries that built and distributed content in the twentieth
- century
-what FM radio was to AM radio, or what the truck was to the
-railroad industry of the nineteenth century: the beginning of the end,
-or at least a substantial transformation. Digital technologies, tied to the
-Internet, could produce a vastly more competitive and vibrant market
-for building and cultivating culture; that market could include a much
-wider and more diverse range of creators; those creators could produce
-and distribute a much more vibrant range of creativity; and depending
-upon a few important factors, those creators could earn more on average
-from this system than creators do today—all so long as the RCAs of our
-day don't use the law to protect themselves against this competition.
-</para>
-<para>
-Yet, as I argue in the pages that follow, that is precisely what is
- happening
-in our culture today. These modern-day equivalents of the early
-twentieth-century radio or nineteenth-century railroads are using their
-power to get the law to protect them against this new, more efficient,
-more vibrant technology for building culture. They are succeeding in
-their plan to remake the Internet before the Internet remakes them.
+to participate in the process of building and cultivating a culture
+that reaches far beyond local boundaries. That power has changed the
+marketplace for making and cultivating culture generally, and that
+change in turn threatens established content industries. The Internet
+is thus to the industries that built and distributed content in the
+twentieth century what FM radio was to AM radio, or what the truck was
+to the railroad industry of the nineteenth century: the beginning of
+the end, or at least a substantial transformation. Digital
+technologies, tied to the Internet, could produce a vastly more
+competitive and vibrant market for building and cultivating culture;
+that market could include a much wider and more diverse range of
+creators; those creators could produce and distribute a much more
+vibrant range of creativity; and depending upon a few important
+factors, those creators could earn more on average from this system
+than creators do today—all so long as the RCAs of our day don't
+use the law to protect themselves against this competition.
+</para>
+<para>
+Yet, as I argue in the pages that follow, that is precisely what is
+happening in our culture today. These modern-day equivalents of the
+early twentieth-century radio or nineteenth-century railroads are
+using their power to get the law to protect them against this new,
+more efficient, more vibrant technology for building culture. They are
+succeeding in their plan to remake the Internet before the Internet
+remakes them.
</para>
<para>
It doesn't seem this way to many. The battles over copyright and the
mainly about a much simpler brace of questions—whether "piracy" will
be permitted, and whether "property" will be protected. The "war" that
has been waged against the technologies of the Internet—what
- Motion
-Picture Association of America (MPAA) president Jack Valenti
+Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) president Jack Valenti
calls his "own terrorist war"<footnote><para>
Amy Harmon, "Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates
Use New Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club," New York
</para>
<para>
If those really were the choices, then I would be with Jack Valenti
-and the content industry. I, too, am a believer in property, and
- especially
-in the importance of what Mr. Valenti nicely calls "creative
- property."
-I believe that "piracy" is wrong, and that the law, properly tuned,
-should punish "piracy," whether on or off the Internet.
+and the content industry. I, too, am a believer in property, and
+especially in the importance of what Mr. Valenti nicely calls
+"creative property." I believe that "piracy" is wrong, and that the
+law, properly tuned, should punish "piracy," whether on or off the
+Internet.
</para>
<para>
But those simple beliefs mask a much more fundamental question
piracy.
</para>
</blockquote>
+<indexterm><primary>Dreyfuss, Rochelle</primary></indexterm>
<para>
This view runs deep within the current debates. It is what NYU law
professor Rochelle Dreyfuss criticizes as the "if value, then right"
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.
+<indexterm><primary>Drahos, Peter</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote> 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
<!-- f9 -->
Ibid., 93.
</para></footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>Erskine, Andrew</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in
loved it, and it sold very well.
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Alben, Alex</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Drucker, Peter</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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
Holland, "Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech Concerns," Billboard,
May 2001; Janelle Brown, "Is the RIAA Running Scared?" Salon.com,
April 2001; Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Frequently Asked
- Questions
-about Felten and USENIX v. RIAA Legal Case," available at
+Questions about Felten and USENIX v. RIAA Legal Case," available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #27</ulink>.
+<indexterm><primary>Electronic Frontier Foundation</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
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
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>
<!-- f28 -->
James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," Atlantic Monthly (September
2003): 89.
+<indexterm><primary>Fallows, James</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 176 -->
-The network did not control those copyrights because the law
- forbade
-the networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The
-law required a separation between the networks and the content
- producers;
-that separation would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as
-1992, because of these rules, the vast majority of prime time
- television—75
-percent of it—was "independent" of the networks.
-</para>
-<para>
-In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this
- independence.
-After that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.
-In 1985, there were twenty-five independent television production
- studios;
-in 2002, only five independent television studios remained. "In
-1992, only 15 percent of new series were produced for a network by a
-company it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by
-controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent." "In 1992,
-16 new series were produced independently of conglomerate control,
-last year there was one."<footnote><para>
+The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade
+the networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law
+required a separation between the networks and the content producers;
+that separation would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992,
+because of these rules, the vast majority of prime time
+television—75 percent of it—was "independent" of the
+networks.
+</para>
+<para>
+In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.
+After that change, the networks quickly changed the balance. In 1985,
+there were twenty-five independent television production studios; in
+2002, only five independent television studios remained. "In 1992,
+only 15 percent of new series were produced for a network by a company
+it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by
+controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent." "In 1992, 16
+new series were produced independently of conglomerate control, last
+year there was one."<footnote><para>
<!-- f30 -->
-NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on
-Media Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th
-Cong., 1st sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of
- Consumers
-Union and the Consumer Federation of America), available at
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #30</ulink>. Kimmelman quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of
-America, West, in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond,
-Virginia, 27 February 2003.
-</para></footnote>
-In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television
-was owned by the networks that ran it. "In the ten-year period between
-1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television hours per week
-produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
- number
-of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
-studios decreased 63%."<footnote><para>
+NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
+Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
+sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union
+and the Consumer Federation of America), available at
+<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #30</ulink>. Kimmelman
+quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West,
+in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February
+2003.
+</para></footnote>
+In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was owned by the networks
+that ran it. "In the ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number
+of prime time television hours per week produced by network studios
+increased over 200%, whereas the number of prime time television hours
+per week produced by independent studios decreased
+63%."<footnote><para>
<!-- f31 -->
Ibid.
</para></footnote>
owned by the network.
</para>
<para>
-While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the
- ownership
-of those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller
-few. As Barry Diller said to Bill Moyers,
+While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the ownership
+of those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller few. As
+Barry Diller said to Bill Moyers,
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
through their controlled distribution system, then what you get is
fewer and fewer actual voices participating in the process. [We
<!-- PAGE BREAK 177 -->
-u]sed to have dozens and dozens of thriving independent
- production
-companies producing television programs. Now you have less
-than a handful.<footnote><para>
+u]sed to have dozens and dozens of thriving independent production
+companies producing television programs. Now you have less than a
+handful.<footnote><para>
<!-- f32 -->
"Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," Now with Bill Moyers, Bill
Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available at
</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
-This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of
-such large and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.
- Increasingly
-safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from
-networks like this is increasingly tailored to the message the network
-wants to convey. This is not the communist party, though from the
- inside,
-it must feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question
-without risk of consequence—not necessarily banishment to Siberia,
-but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are
-quashed. This is not the environment for a democracy.
+This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such
+large and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.
+Increasingly safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows
+from networks like this is increasingly tailored to the message the
+network wants to convey. This is not the communist party, though from
+the inside, it must feel a bit like the communist party. No one can
+question without risk of consequence—not necessarily banishment
+to Siberia, but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical,
+different views are quashed. This is not the environment for a
+democracy.
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Clark, Kim B.</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media
companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<footnote><para>
<!-- f33 -->
-Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary
- National
-Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do Business (Cambridge: Harvard
-Business School Press, 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was
-first suggested by Dean Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, "The Interaction of
-Design Hierarchies and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,"
-Research Policy 14 (1985): 235–51. For a more recent study, see Richard
-Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are
-Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform
-Them (New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001).
-</para></footnote>
+Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The
+Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do Business
+(Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 1997). Christensen
+acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean Kim Clark. See
+Kim B. Clark, "The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market
+Concepts in Technological Evolution," Research Policy 14 (1985):
+235–51. For a more recent study, see Richard Foster and Sarah
+Kaplan, Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last
+Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them
+(New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001). </para></footnote>
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
</table>
<para>
-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:
+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:
</para>
<table id="t5">
Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.
Rather than embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace
something that recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book
-with a sketch of a system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter
-is to show just how awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance
-extreme. I believe either extreme would be worse than a reasonable
- alternative.
-But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
-of the two extremes.
+with a sketch of a system that does just that, my aim in the next
+chapter is to show just how awful it would be for us to adopt the
+zero-tolerance extreme. I believe either extreme would be worse than a
+reasonable alternative. But I believe the zero-tolerance solution
+would be the worse of the two extremes.
</para>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 190 -->
Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the
-middle of the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land
-grab is occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give
- content
-holders a kind of control over our culture that they have never had
-before. And in this extremism, many an opportunity for new
- innovation
-and new creativity will be lost.
+middle of the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary
+land grab is occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to
+give content holders a kind of control over our culture that they have
+never had before. And in this extremism, many an opportunity for new
+innovation and new creativity will be lost.
</para>
<para>
I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to "steal" music. My
focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this war
will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
-broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the
- innovation
-that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the
-passing of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute
-content. The law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president
-for global public policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com,
-put it when criticizing the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted
-material,
+broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the
+innovation that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already
+seen the passing of one cycle of innovation around technologies to
+distribute content. The law is responsible for this passing. As the
+vice president for global public policy at one of these new
+innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing the DMCA's added
+protection for copyrighted material,
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
whenever you turn a very large percentage of the population into
criminals." This is the collateral damage to civil liberties
generally.
+<indexterm><primary>Electronic Frontier Foundation</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
"If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker," von Lohmann
See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy? (New York: The New Press, 2003), 37.
<indexterm><primary>Braithwaite, John</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Drahos, Peter</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
United States in the lead, was that South Africa respect these patents
as it respects any other patent, regardless of any effect on the treatment
of AIDS within South Africa.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f4. --> International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), Patent Protection and
-Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a Report
- Prepared
-for the World Intellectual Property Organization (Washington, D.C.,
-2000), 15.
-</para></footnote>
+<!-- f4. -->
+International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), Patent
+Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan
+Africa, a Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property
+Organization (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
-We should place the intervention by the United States in context.
-No doubt patents are not the most important reason that Africans
-don't have access to drugs. Poverty and the total absence of an effective
+We should place the intervention by the United States in context. No
+doubt patents are not the most important reason that Africans don't
+have access to drugs. Poverty and the total absence of an effective
health care infrastructure matter more. But whether patents are the
-most important reason or not, the price of drugs has an effect on their
-demand, and patents affect price. And so, whether massive or
- marginal,
-there was an effect from our government's intervention to stop
-the flow of medications into Africa.
+most important reason or not, the price of drugs has an effect on
+their demand, and patents affect price. And so, whether massive or
+marginal, there was an effect from our government's intervention to
+stop the flow of medications into Africa.
</para>
<para>
By stopping the flow of HIV treatment into Africa, the United
by U.S. companies.
</para>
<para>
-Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of
- information,
-which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument
+Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of
+information, which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an
+argument
<!-- PAGE BREAK 267 -->
about the sanctity of property.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f5. --> See Sabin Russell, "New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
+<!-- f5. -->
+See Sabin Russell, "New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive," San Francisco Chronicle, 24
-May 1999, A1, available at
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #57</ulink> ("compulsory licenses and gray
- markets
-pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual property protection");
-Robert Weissman, "AIDS and Developing Countries: Democratizing
- Access
-to Essential Medicines," Foreign Policy in Focus 4:23 (August 1999),
-available at
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #58</ulink> (describing U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, "TRIPS,
-Pharmaceutical Patents, and the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper
-Balance Between Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a
- Synopsis,"
-Widener Law Symposium Journal (Spring 2001): 175.
+May 1999, A1, available at
+<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #57</ulink>
+("compulsory licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire
+system of intellectual property protection"); Robert Weissman, "AIDS
+and Developing Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential
+Medicines," Foreign Policy in Focus 4:23 (August 1999), available at
+<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #58</ulink>
+(describing U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, "TRIPS, Pharmaceutical
+Patents, and the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between
+Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis," Widener Law
+Symposium Journal (Spring 2001): 175.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 333 -->
</para></footnote>
- It was because "intellectual property"
-would be violated that these drugs should not flow into Africa. It was
-a principle about the importance of "intellectual property" that led
-these government actors to intervene against the South African
- response
-to AIDS.
+It was because "intellectual property" would be violated that these
+drugs should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the
+importance of "intellectual property" that led these government actors
+to intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
</para>
<para>
Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years
from now when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have
-let this happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose
- direct
-cost would be to speed the death of 15 to 30 million Africans, and
-whose only real benefit would be to uphold the "sanctity" of an idea?
-What possible justification could there ever be for a policy that results
-in so many deaths? What exactly is the insanity that would allow so
-many to die for such an abstraction?
+let this happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose
+direct cost would be to speed the death of 15 to 30 million Africans,
+and whose only real benefit would be to uphold the "sanctity" of an
+idea? What possible justification could there ever be for a policy
+that results in so many deaths? What exactly is the insanity that
+would allow so many to die for such an abstraction?
</para>
<para>
Some blame the drug companies. I don't. They are corporations.
</para>
<para>
The corruption is our own politicians' failure of integrity. For the
-drug companies would love—they say, and I believe them—to sell their
-drugs as cheaply as they can to countries in Africa and elsewhere.
-There are issues they'd have to resolve to make sure the drugs didn't get
-back into the United States, but those are mere problems of
- technology.
-They could be overcome.
+drug companies would love—they say, and I believe them—to
+sell their drugs as cheaply as they can to countries in Africa and
+elsewhere. There are issues they'd have to resolve to make sure the
+drugs didn't get back into the United States, but those are mere
+problems of technology. They could be overcome.
</para>
<para>
A different problem, however, could not be overcome. This is the
What is the argument?
</para>
<para>
-A sensible patent policy could endorse and strongly support the
-patent system without having to reach everyone everywhere in exactly
-the same way. Just as a sensible copyright policy could endorse and
-strongly support a copyright system without having to regulate the
-spread of culture perfectly and forever, a sensible patent policy could
-endorse and strongly support a patent system without having to block
-the spread of drugs to a country not rich enough to afford market
-prices in any case. A sensible policy, in other words, could be a balanced
-policy. For most of our history, both copyright and patent policies were
-balanced in just this sense.
+A sensible patent policy could endorse and strongly support the patent
+system without having to reach everyone everywhere in exactly the same
+way. Just as a sensible copyright policy could endorse and strongly
+support a copyright system without having to regulate the spread of
+culture perfectly and forever, a sensible patent policy could endorse
+and strongly support a patent system without having to block the
+spread of drugs to a country not rich enough to afford market prices
+in any case. A sensible policy, in other words, could be a balanced
+policy. For most of our history, both copyright and patent policies
+were balanced in just this sense.
</para>
<para>
But we as a culture have lost this sense of balance. We have lost the
-critical eye that helps us see the difference between truth and
- extremism.
-A certain property fundamentalism, having no connection to our
-tradition, now reigns in this culture—bizarrely, and with consequences
-more grave to the spread of ideas and culture than almost any other
-single policy decision that we as a democracy will make.
-A simple idea blinds us, and under the cover of darkness, much
-happens that most of us would reject if any of us looked. So uncritically
-do we accept the idea of property in ideas that we don't even notice
-how monstrous it is to deny ideas to a people who are dying without
-them. So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in culture that
-we don't even question when the control of that property removes our
+critical eye that helps us see the difference between truth and
+extremism. A certain property fundamentalism, having no connection to
+our tradition, now reigns in this culture—bizarrely, and with
+consequences more grave to the spread of ideas and culture than almost
+any other single policy decision that we as a democracy will make. A
+simple idea blinds us, and under the cover of darkness, much happens
+that most of us would reject if any of us looked. So uncritically do
+we accept the idea of property in ideas that we don't even notice how
+monstrous it is to deny ideas to a people who are dying without
+them. So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in culture
+that we don't even question when the control of that property removes
+our
<!-- PAGE BREAK 269 -->
ability, as a people, to develop our culture democratically. Blindness
becomes our common sense. And the challenge for anyone who would
Daily, 19 August 2003, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #61</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
- At the request of a wide range of interests, WIPO had
- decided
-to hold a meeting to discuss "open and collaborative projects to
-create public goods." These are projects that have been successful in
-producing public goods without relying exclusively upon a proprietary
-use of intellectual property. Examples include the Internet and the
-World Wide Web, both of which were developed on the basis of
- protocols
-in the public domain. It included an emerging trend to support
-open academic journals, including the Public Library of Science
- project
+At the request of a wide range of interests, WIPO had decided to hold
+a meeting to discuss "open and collaborative projects to create public
+goods." These are projects that have been successful in producing
+public goods without relying exclusively upon a proprietary use of
+intellectual property. Examples include the Internet and the World
+Wide Web, both of which were developed on the basis of protocols in
+the public domain. It included an emerging trend to support open
+academic journals, including the Public Library of Science project
that I describe in the Afterword. It included a project to develop
single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are thought to have
-great significance in biomedical research. (That nonprofit project
- comprised
-a consortium of the Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and
+great significance in biomedical research. (That nonprofit project
+comprised a consortium of the Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and
technological companies, including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca,
<!-- PAGE BREAK 270 -->
Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche,
- Glaxo-SmithKline,
-IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It included
-the Global Positioning System, which Ronald Reagan set free in the
-early 1980s. And it included "open source and free software."
+Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It
+included the Global Positioning System, which Ronald Reagan set free
+in the early 1980s. And it included "open source and free software."
</para>
<para>
The aim of the meeting was to consider this wide range of projects
<!-- f7. --> I should disclose that I was one of the people who asked WIPO for the
meeting.
</para></footnote>
-The projects within its scope included both commercial and
- noncommercial
-work. They primarily involved science, but from many
- perspectives.
-And WIPO was an ideal venue for this discussion, since
+The projects within its scope included both commercial and
+noncommercial work. They primarily involved science, but from many
+perspectives. And WIPO was an ideal venue for this discussion, since
WIPO is the preeminent international body dealing with intellectual
property issues.
</para>
<para>
Indeed, I was once publicly scolded for not recognizing this fact
about WIPO. In February 2003, I delivered a keynote address to a
-preparatory conference for the World Summit on the Information
- Society
-(WSIS). At a press conference before the address, I was asked
-what I would say. I responded that I would be talking a little about the
+preparatory conference for the World Summit on the Information Society
+(WSIS). At a press conference before the address, I was asked what I
+would say. I responded that I would be talking a little about the
importance of balance in intellectual property for the development of
-an information society. The moderator for the event then promptly
- interrupted
-to inform me and the assembled reporters that no question
+an information society. The moderator for the event then promptly
+interrupted to inform me and the assembled reporters that no question
about intellectual property would be discussed by WSIS, since those
questions were the exclusive domain of WIPO. In the talk that I had
-prepared, I had actually made the issue of intellectual property
- relatively
-minor. But after this astonishing statement, I made intellectual
-property the sole focus of my talk. There was no way to talk about an
-"Information Society" unless one also talked about the range of
- information
-and culture that would be free. My talk did not make my
- immoderate
-moderator very happy. And she was no doubt correct that the
-scope of intellectual property protections was ordinarily the stuff of
+prepared, I had actually made the issue of intellectual property
+relatively minor. But after this astonishing statement, I made
+intellectual property the sole focus of my talk. There was no way to
+talk about an "Information Society" unless one also talked about the
+range of information and culture that would be free. My talk did not
+make my immoderate moderator very happy. And she was no doubt correct
+that the scope of intellectual property protections was ordinarily the
+stuff of
<!-- PAGE BREAK 271 -->
WIPO. But in my view, there couldn't be too much of a conversation
about how much intellectual property is needed, since in my view, the
very idea of balance in intellectual property had been lost.
</para>
<para>
-So whether or not WSIS can discuss balance in intellectual
- property,
-I had thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and
-should. And thus the meeting about "open and collaborative projects to
-create public goods" seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO
-agenda.
+So whether or not WSIS can discuss balance in intellectual property, I
+had thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and should. And
+thus the meeting about "open and collaborative projects to create
+public goods" seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
</para>
<para>
-But there is one project within that list that is highly controversial,
-at least among lobbyists. That project is "open source and free
- software."
-Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of the subject. From
-its perspective, a conference to discuss open source and free software
-would be like a conference to discuss Apple's operating system. Both
-open source and free software compete with Microsoft's software. And
-internationally, many governments have begun to explore requirements
-that they use open source or free software, rather than "proprietary
-software," for their own internal uses.
+But there is one project within that list that is highly
+controversial, at least among lobbyists. That project is "open source
+and free software." Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of
+the subject. From its perspective, a conference to discuss open source
+and free software would be like a conference to discuss Apple's
+operating system. Both open source and free software compete with
+Microsoft's software. And internationally, many governments have begun
+to explore requirements that they use open source or free software,
+rather than "proprietary software," for their own internal uses.
</para>
<para>
I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make
choice we are now making about intellectual property.<footnote><para>
<!-- f10. -->
See Drahos with Braithwaite, Information Feudalism, 210–20.
+<indexterm><primary>Drahos, Peter</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
We will have an information society. That much is certain. Our only
choice now is whether that information society will be free or
If we were Achilles, this would be our heel. This would be the place
of our tragedy.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Dylan, Bob</primary></indexterm>
<para>
As I write these final words, the news is filled with stories about
the RIAA lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.<footnote><para>
world that is a creator's nightmare.
</para>
<para>
-What's needed is a way to say something in the middle—neither "all
-rights reserved" nor "no rights reserved" but "some rights reserved"—
-and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable creators to free content
-as they see fit. In other words, we need a way to restore a set of
- freedoms
-that we could just take for granted before.
+What's needed is a way to say something in the middle—neither
+"all rights reserved" nor "no rights reserved" but "some rights
+reserved"— and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable
+creators to free content as they see fit. In other words, we need a
+way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take for granted
+before.
</para>
<sect2 id="examples">
scientific journals are produced.
</para>
<para>
-As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many
-that printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending
-them to libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
+As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
+printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them
+to libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
-libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
-through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
-happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
-electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
- service.
-Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and
- anyone
-is free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free
+libraries and their users are given access to these electronic
+journals through password-protected sites. Something similar to this
+has been happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw
+have had electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers
+to their service. Although a Supreme Court opinion is not
+copyrighted, and anyone is free to go to a library and read it, Lexis
+and Westlaw are also free
<!-- PAGE BREAK 286 -->
to charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme
Court opinion through their respective services.
</para>
<para>
-There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability
-to charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive
+There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
+charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive
for people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.
-The law has agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been
- allowed
+The law has agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed
to flourish. And if there's nothing wrong with selling the public
domain, then there could be nothing wrong, in principle, with selling
access to material that is not in the public domain.
</para>
<para>
As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
-scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
-libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to
-the library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts
- because
-the library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand
-the risks of a certain treatment could research those risks by reading all
-available articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a
-function of the institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of
-paper journals (architecture)—namely, that it was very hard to control
-access to a paper journal.
+scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper
+form, libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had
+access to the library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer
+experts because the library gave them access. Or patients trying to
+understand the risks of a certain treatment could research those risks
+by reading all available articles about that treatment. This freedom
+was therefore a function of the institution of libraries (norms) and
+the technology of paper journals (architecture)—namely, that it
+was very hard to control access to a paper journal.
</para>
<para>
As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding
</para>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 293 -->
-These are all formalities associated with property. They are
- requirements
-that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
+These are all formalities associated with property. They are
+requirements that we all must bear if we want our property to be
+protected.
</para>
<para>
In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a
was a good one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities
imposed a burden on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it
was progress when the law relaxed the formal requirements that a
-copyright owner must bear to protect and secure his work. Those
- formalities
-were getting in the way.
+copyright owner must bear to protect and secure his work. Those
+formalities were getting in the way.
</para>
<para>
But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
-burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that
- burdens
-creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what,
-or with whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the
- creative
-work of others. There are no records, there is no system to trace—
-there is no simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the
-massive increase in the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is
-a necessary step for any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the
-lack of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could
-speak.
+burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that
+burdens creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns
+what, or with whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the
+creative work of others. There are no records, there is no system to
+trace— there is no simple way to know how to get permission. Yet
+given the massive increase in the scope of copyright's rule, getting
+permission is a necessary step for any work that builds upon our
+past. And thus, the lack of formalities forces many into silence where
+they otherwise could speak.
</para>
<para>
The law should therefore change this requirement<footnote><para>
-<!-- f1. --> 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.
-</para></footnote>—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.
-</para>
-<para>
-The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work,
- registering
-copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally,
-the first of these three was something the copyright owner did; the
- second
-two were something the government did. But a revised system of
-formalities would banish the government from the process, except for
-the sole purpose of approving standards developed by others.
+<!-- f1. -->
+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.</para></footnote>—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.
+</para>
+<para>
+The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work,
+registering copyrights, and renewing the claim to
+copyright. Traditionally, the first of these three was something the
+copyright owner did; the second two were something the government
+did. But a revised system of formalities would banish the government
+from the process, except for the sole purpose of approving standards
+developed by others.
</para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 294 -->
Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are important.
Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines around
regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
-"reuse" of creative material was within the control of businesses,
- perhaps
-it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the lines. It no longer
-makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think about all the
- creative
-possibilities that digital technologies enable; now imagine
- pouring
-molasses into the machines. That's what this general requirement
-of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
+"reuse" of creative material was within the control of businesses,
+perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the lines. It no
+longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think about all
+the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
+imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
+requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
</para>
<para>
This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #82</ulink>; Steven M. Cherry, "Getting Copyright Right,"
IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #83</ulink>; Declan
- McCullagh,
-"Verizon's Copyright Campaign," CNET News.com, 27 August
+McCullagh, "Verizon's Copyright Campaign," CNET News.com, 27 August
2002, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #84</ulink>.
Fisher's proposal is very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for
DAT. Unlike Fisher's, Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly
proportionally, though more popular artists would get more than the less
popular. As is typical with Stallman, his proposal predates the current
- debate
-by about a decade. See
+debate by about a decade. See
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #85</ulink>.
<indexterm><primary>Netanel, Neil Weinstock</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Fisher, William</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
- Fisher suggests a
-very clever way around the current impasse of the Internet. Under his
-plan, all content capable of digital transmission would (1) be marked
-with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to evade
-these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once the
-content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
-monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the
- basis
-of those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The
- compensation
-would be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
+Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
+Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission
+would (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how
+easy it is to evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive
+to evade them). Once the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would
+develop (2) systems to monitor how many items of each content were
+distributed. On the basis of those numbers, then (3) artists would be
+compensated. The compensation would be paid for by (4) an appropriate
+tax.
</para>
<para>
Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
-Promises to Keep. The modification that I would make is relatively
- simple:
-Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing copyright
- system.
-I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim of the
-proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
-could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at
- facilitating
-a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal
-after a period of years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free
- exchange
-of content, supported through a taxation system, then it can be
-continued. If this form of protection is no longer necessary, then the
-system could lapse into the old system of controlling access.
-</para>
-<para>
-Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His
-aim is not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the
-system supports the widest range of "semiotic democracy" possible. But
-the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes
-I described were accomplished—in particular, the limits on derivative
+Promises to Keep. The modification that I would make is relatively
+simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing copyright
+system. I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim of
+the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that
+harm could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at
+facilitating a transition between regimes. And it would require
+renewal after a period of years. If it continues to make sense to
+facilitate free exchange of content, supported through a taxation
+system, then it can be continued. If this form of protection is no
+longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the old system of
+controlling access.
+</para>
+<para>
+Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim
+is not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that
+the system supports the widest range of "semiotic democracy"
+possible. But the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the
+other changes I described were accomplished—in particular, the
+limits on derivative
<!-- PAGE BREAK 307 -->
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.
+semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was
+allowed to do with the content itself.
</para>
<para>
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
</para></listitem>
</orderedlist>
<para>
-But what if "piracy" doesn't disappear? What if there is a
- competitive
+But what if "piracy" doesn't disappear? What if there is a competitive
market providing content at a low cost, but a significant number of
consumers continue to "take" content for nothing? Should the law do
something then?
</para>
<para>
Yes, it should. But, again, what it should do depends upon how the
-facts develop. These changes may not eliminate type A sharing. But
-the real issue is not whether it eliminates sharing in the abstract.
-The real issue is its effect on the market. Is it better (a) to have a
- technology
-that is 95 percent secure and produces a market of size x, or
-(b) to have a technology that is 50 percent secure but produces a
- market
-of five times x? Less secure might produce more unauthorized
-sharing, but it is likely to also produce a much bigger market in
- authorized
-sharing. The most important thing is to assure artists'
- compensation
-without breaking the Internet. Once that's assured, then it
-may well be appropriate to find ways to track down the petty pirates.
+facts develop. These changes may not eliminate type A sharing. But the
+real issue is not whether it eliminates sharing in the abstract. The
+real issue is its effect on the market. Is it better (a) to have a
+technology that is 95 percent secure and produces a market of size x,
+or (b) to have a technology that is 50 percent secure but produces a
+market of five times x? Less secure might produce more unauthorized
+sharing, but it is likely to also produce a much bigger market in
+authorized sharing. The most important thing is to assure artists'
+compensation without breaking the Internet. Once that's assured, then
+it may well be appropriate to find ways to track down the petty
+pirates.
</para>
<para>
But we're a long way away from whittling the problem down to this
-subset of type A sharers. And our focus until we're there should not be
-on finding ways to break the Internet. Our focus until we're there
+subset of type A sharers. And our focus until we're there should not
+be on finding ways to break the Internet. Our focus until we're there
<!-- PAGE BREAK 309 -->
-should be on how to make sure the artists are paid, while protecting the
-space for innovation and creativity that the Internet is.
+should be on how to make sure the artists are paid, while protecting
+the space for innovation and creativity that the Internet is.
</para>
</sect2>
</para>
<para>
Yet much of this book has been a criticism of lawyers, or the role
-lawyers have played in this debate. The law speaks to ideals, but it is
-my view that our profession has become too attuned to the client. And
-in a world where the rich clients have one strong view, the
- unwillingness
-of the profession to question or counter that one strong view queers
-the law.
-</para>
-<para>
-The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
- "radical"
-by many within the profession, yet the positions that I am
- advocating
-are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate and
-significant figures in the history of this branch of the law. Many, for
- example,
-thought crazy the challenge that we brought to the Copyright
-Term Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the dominant scholar
-and practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville Nimmer, thought it
-obvious.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f10. --> Lawrence Lessig, "Copyright's First Amendment" (Melville B. Nimmer
+lawyers have played in this debate. The law speaks to ideals, but it
+is my view that our profession has become too attuned to the
+client. And in a world where the rich clients have one strong view,
+the unwillingness of the profession to question or counter that one
+strong view queers the law.
+</para>
+<para>
+The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
+"radical" by many within the profession, yet the positions that I am
+advocating are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate
+and significant figures in the history of this branch of the
+law. Many, for example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to
+the Copyright Term Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the
+dominant scholar and practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville
+Nimmer, thought it obvious.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f10. -->
+Lawrence Lessig, "Copyright's First Amendment" (Melville B. Nimmer
Memorial Lecture), UCLA Law Review 48 (2001): 1057, 1069–70.
</para></footnote>
about our failure to actually reckon the costs of the law.
</para>
<para>
-Economists are supposed to be good at reckoning costs and
- benefits.
-But more often than not, economists, with no clue about how the
-legal system actually functions, simply assume that the transaction
-costs of the legal system are slight.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f11. --> A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is to
-be commended for his careful review of data about infringement, leading
-him to question his own publicly stated position—twice. He initially
- predicted
-that downloading would substantially harm the industry. He then
-revised his view in light of the data, and he has since revised his view again.
-Compare Stan J. Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy: The True
-Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace (New York: Amacom, 2002),
-(reviewing his original view but expressing skepticism) with Stan J.
-Liebowitz, "Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?" working paper,
-June 2003, available at
+Economists are supposed to be good at reckoning costs and benefits.
+But more often than not, economists, with no clue about how the legal
+system actually functions, simply assume that the transaction costs of
+the legal system are slight.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f11. -->
+A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is
+to be commended for his careful review of data about infringement,
+leading him to question his own publicly stated
+position—twice. He initially predicted that downloading would
+substantially harm the industry. He then revised his view in light of
+the data, and he has since revised his view again. Compare Stan
+J. Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy: The True Forces That
+Drive the Digital Marketplace (New York: Amacom, 2002), (reviewing his
+original view but expressing skepticism) with Stan J. Liebowitz,
+"Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?" working paper, June 2003,
+available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #86</ulink>.
-Liebowitz's careful analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the
- effect
-of file-sharing technology. In my view, however, he underestimates the
-costs of the legal system. See, for example, Rethinking, 174–76.
+Liebowitz's careful analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the
+effect of file-sharing technology. In my view, however, he
+underestimates the costs of the legal system. See, for example,
+Rethinking, 174–76.
</para></footnote>
- They see a system that has been
-around for hundreds of years, and they assume it works the way their
-elementary school civics class taught them it works.
+They see a system that has been around for hundreds of years, and they
+assume it works the way their elementary school civics class taught
+them it works.
</para>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 310 -->
-But the legal system doesn't work. Or more accurately, it doesn't
-work for anyone except those with the most resources. Not because the
-system is corrupt. I don't think our legal system (at the federal level, at
-least) is at all corrupt. I mean simply because the costs of our legal
- system
-are so astonishingly high that justice can practically never be done.
+But the legal system doesn't work. Or more accurately, it doesn't work
+for anyone except those with the most resources. Not because the
+system is corrupt. I don't think our legal system (at the federal
+level, at least) is at all corrupt. I mean simply because the costs of
+our legal system are so astonishingly high that justice can
+practically never be done.
</para>
<para>
These costs distort free culture in many ways. A lawyer's time is
billed at the largest firms at more than $400 per hour. How much time
-should such a lawyer spend reading cases carefully, or researching
- obscure
-strands of authority? The answer is the increasing reality: very
- little.
-The law depended upon the careful articulation and development
-of doctrine, but the careful articulation and development of legal
- doctrine
-depends upon careful work. Yet that careful work costs too much,
-except in the most high-profile and costly cases.
+should such a lawyer spend reading cases carefully, or researching
+obscure strands of authority? The answer is the increasing reality:
+very little. The law depended upon the careful articulation and
+development of doctrine, but the careful articulation and development
+of legal doctrine depends upon careful work. Yet that careful work
+costs too much, except in the most high-profile and costly cases.
</para>
<para>
The costliness and clumsiness and randomness of this system mock
and inexpensive, and hence radically more just.
</para>
<para>
-But until that reform is complete, we as a society should keep the
-law away from areas that we know it will only harm. And that is
- precisely
-what the law will too often do if too much of our culture is left
-to its review.
+But until that reform is complete, we as a society should keep the law
+away from areas that we know it will only harm. And that is precisely
+what the law will too often do if too much of our culture is left to
+its review.
</para>
<para>
-Think about the amazing things your kid could do or make with
-digital technology—the film, the music, the Web page, the blog. Or
-think about the amazing things your community could facilitate with
-digital technology—a wiki, a barn raising, activism to change
- something.
-Think about all those creative things, and then imagine cold
-molasses poured onto the machines. This is what any regime that
- requires
-permission produces. Again, this is the reality of Brezhnev's
-Russia.
+Think about the amazing things your kid could do or make with digital
+technology—the film, the music, the Web page, the blog. Or think
+about the amazing things your community could facilitate with digital
+technology—a wiki, a barn raising, activism to change something.
+Think about all those creative things, and then imagine cold molasses
+poured onto the machines. This is what any regime that requires
+permission produces. Again, this is the reality of Brezhnev's Russia.
</para>
<para>
The law should regulate in certain areas of culture—but it should
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff