<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Free Culture</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.78.1"><meta name="description" content="About the author Lawrence Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor of law and a Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is chairman of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). The author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), Lessig is a member of the boards of the Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, twice listed in BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, and named one of Scientific American's 50 visionaries. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="en" class="book"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Free Culture</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">How big media uses technology and the law to lock down
- culture and control creativity</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Version 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice"><a name="idp
36000960"></a><p>
+ culture and control creativity</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Version 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice"><a name="idp
45327472"></a><p>
<span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="38" alt="Creative Commons, Some rights reserved"></span>
</p><p>
This book is licensed under a Creative Commons license. This license
permits non-commercial use of this work, so long as attribution is
given. For more information about the license visit
<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>.
- </p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2015-
09-04</p></div><div><div class="abstract"><p class="title"><b>About the author</b></p><p>
+ </p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2015-
10-17</p></div><div><div class="abstract"><p class="title"><b>About the author</b></p><p>
Lawrence Lessig
(<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>),
professor of law and a Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership
the boards of the Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, and Public Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free
Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software,
-twice listed in BusinessWeek's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>»</span> and named one
-of Scientific American's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">50 visionaries.</span>»</span> A graduate of
+twice listed in BusinessWeek's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>”</span> and named one
+of Scientific American's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">50 visionaries.</span>”</span> A graduate of
the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law
School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals.
- </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><p>
+ </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a>
+Also by Lawrence Lessig
+</h1></div></div></div><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
+The USA is lesterland: The nature of congressional corruption (2014)
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+Republic, lost: How money corrupts Congress - and a plan to stop it (2011)
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy (2008)
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+Code: Version 2.0 (2006)
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (2001)
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999)
+</p></li></ul></div></div><hr><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="dedication"></a></h1></div></div></div><p>
To Eric Eldred — whose work first drew me to this cause, and for whom
it continues still.
-</p></div><hr><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="bibliography"><a href="#alsobylessig">
-Also by Lawrence Lessig
- </a></span></dt><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Preface</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Chapter Four: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Chapter Five: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Together</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Puzzles</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Balances</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">1. <a href="#usnow">Us, now</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">1.1. <a href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">2. <a href="#themsoon">Them, soon</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. More Formalities</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Marking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">Notes</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp42796480">Index</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-about-this-edition">About this edition</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp42815216">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="bibliography"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a>
-Also by Lawrence Lessig
- </h1></div></div></div><div class="biblioentry"><a name="idp37875456"></a><p><span class="title"><i>The USA is lesterland: The nature of congressional corruption</i>. </span><span class="pubdate">2014. </span></p></div><div class="biblioentry"><a name="idp37876928"></a><p><span class="title"><i>Republic, lost: How money corrupts Congress - and a plan to stop it</i>. </span><span class="pubdate">2011. </span></p></div><div class="biblioentry"><a name="idp37878384"></a><p><span class="title"><i>Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy</i>. </span><span class="pubdate">2008. </span></p></div><div class="biblioentry"><a name="idp37879840"></a><p><span class="title"><i>Code: Version 2.0</i>. </span><span class="pubdate">2006. </span></p></div><div class="biblioentry"><a name="idp37881328"></a><p><span class="title"><i>The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World</i>. </span><span class="pubdate">2001. </span></p></div><div class="biblioentry"><a name="idp37882784"></a><p><span class="title"><i>Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</i>. </span><span class="pubdate">1999. </span></p></div></div><div class="preface"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Preface</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp33193216"></a><p>
+</p></div><hr><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Preface</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piracy</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Chapter Four: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Pirates</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Chapter Five: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piracy</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Property</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Property</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Together</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Puzzles</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Balances</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">1. <a href="#usnow">Us, now</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">1.1. <a href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">2. <a href="#themsoon">Them, soon</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. More Formalities</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Marking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">Notes</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp50996080">Index</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-about-this-edition">About this edition</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp51007888">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="preface"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Preface</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41384576"></a><p>
<span class="bold"><strong>At the end</strong></span> of his review of my first
book, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, David
Pogue, a brilliant writer and author of countless technical and
system, you can always flip off the modem.<a href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote" name="preface01"><sup class="footnote">[1]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Pogue was skeptical of the core argument of the book—that
-software, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">code,</span>»</span> functioned as a kind of law—and his review
+software, or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">code,</span>”</span> functioned as a kind of law—and his review
suggested the happy thought that if life in cyberspace got bad, we
-could always <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drizzle, drazzle, druzzle, drome</span>»</span>-like simply flip a
+could always <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">drizzle, drazzle, druzzle, drome</span>”</span>-like simply flip a
switch and be back home. Turn off the modem, unplug the computer, and
any troubles that exist in <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> space wouldn't
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">affect</span>»</span> us anymore.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">affect</span>”</span> us anymore.
</p><p>
Pogue might have been right in 1999—I'm skeptical, but maybe.
But even if he was right then, the point is not right now:
causes even after the modem is turned
off. It is an argument about how the battles that now rage regarding life
-on-line have fundamentally affected <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">people who aren't online.</span>»</span> There
+on-line have fundamentally affected <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">people who aren't online.</span>”</span> There
is no switch that will insulate us from the Internet's effect.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
33202688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41394096"></a><p>
But unlike <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, the argument here is not much
about the Internet itself. It is instead about the consequence of the
Internet to a part of our tradition that is much more fundamental,
important.
</p><p>
That tradition is the way our culture gets made. As I explain in the
-pages that follow, we come from a tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture</span>»</span>—not
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free beer</span>»</span> (to borrow a phrase from the founder of the
-free software movement<a href="#ftn.idp38704880" class="footnote" name="idp38704880"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>), but <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free speech,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free markets,</span>»</span>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free trade,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free enterprise,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free will,</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free elections.</span>»</span> A
+pages that follow, we come from a tradition of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free culture</span>”</span>—not
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> as in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free beer</span>”</span> (to borrow a phrase from the founder of the
+free software movement<a href="#ftn.idp41349264" class="footnote" name="idp41349264"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>), but <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> as in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free speech,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free markets,</span>”</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free trade,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free enterprise,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free will,</span>”</span> and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free elections.</span>”</span> A
free culture supports and protects creators and innovators. It does
this directly by granting intellectual property rights. But it does so
indirectly by limiting the reach of those rights, to guarantee that
possible</em></span> from the control of the past. A free culture is
not a culture without property, just as a free market is not a market
in which everything is free. The opposite of a free culture is a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission culture</span>»</span>—a culture in which creators get to create
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permission culture</span>”</span>—a culture in which creators get to create
only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the
past.
</p><p>
-If we understood this change, I believe we would resist it. Not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we</span>»</span>
-on the Left or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">you</span>»</span> on the Right, but we who have no stake in the
+If we understood this change, I believe we would resist it. Not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we</span>”</span>
+on the Left or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">you</span>”</span> on the Right, but we who have no stake in the
particular industries of culture that defined the twentieth century.
Whether you are on the Left or the Right, if you are in this sense
disinterested, then the story I tell here will trouble you. For the
changes I describe affect values that both sides of our political
culture deem fundamental.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
33101056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp33101872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp33102688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46908256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46909008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46909760"></a><p>
We saw a glimpse of this bipartisan outrage in the early summer of
2003. As the FCC considered changes in media ownership rules that
would relax limits on media concentration, an extraordinary coalition
generated more than 700,000 letters to the FCC opposing the change.
-As William Safire described marching <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uncomfortably alongside CodePink
+As William Safire described marching <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">uncomfortably alongside CodePink
Women for Peace and the National Rifle Association, between liberal
-Olympia Snowe and conservative Ted Stevens,</span>»</span> he formulated perhaps
+Olympia Snowe and conservative Ted Stevens,</span>”</span> he formulated perhaps
most simply just what was at stake: the concentration of power. And as
he asked,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
power—political, corporate, media, cultural—should be anathema to
conservatives. The diffusion of power through local control, thereby
encouraging individual participation, is the essence of federalism and
-the greatest expression of democracy.<a href="#ftn.idp33105472" class="footnote" name="idp33105472"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a>
+the greatest expression of democracy.<a href="#ftn.idp46912480" class="footnote" name="idp46912480"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This idea is an element of the argument of <em class="citetitle">Free Culture</em>, though my
focus is not just on the concentration of power produced by
altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry
you—whether or not you care about the Internet, and whether you're on
Safire's left or on his right.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38729024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46915744"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The inspiration</strong></span> for the title and for
much of the argument of this book comes from the work of Richard
Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Indeed, as I reread
Stallman's own work, especially the essays in <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free
Society</em>, I realize that all of the theoretical insights I develop here
are insights Stallman described decades ago. One could thus well argue
-that this work is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">merely</span>»</span> derivative.
+that this work is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">merely</span>”</span> derivative.
</p><p>
I accept that criticism, if indeed it is a criticism. The work of a
lawyer is always derivative, and I mean to do nothing more in this
fear about our culture today. It is against that extremism that this
book is written.
</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.preface01" class="footnote"><p><a href="#preface01" class="para"><sup class="para">[1] </sup></a>
-David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 30 January 2000.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38704880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38704880" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>
+David Pogue, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 30 January 2000.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41349264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41349264" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>
Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Societies</em> 57 (Joshua Gay, ed. 2002).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp33105472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp33105472" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a> William Safire,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 May 2003.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp33107088"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp46912480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp46912480" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a> William Safire,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 May 2003.
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp46913968"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Chapter . Introduction</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxwrightbrothers"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>On December 17</strong></span>, 1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just
shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a
At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American
law held that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface
of his land, but all the land below, down to the center of the earth,
-and all the space above, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp38744368" class="footnote" name="idp38744368"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a>
+and all the space above, to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp46931088" class="footnote" name="idp46931088"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a>
For many
years, scholars had puzzled about how best to interpret the idea that
rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean that you owned the
stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and regular trespass?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38745632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46932352"></a><p>
Then came airplanes, and for the first time, this principle of American
law—deep within the foundations of our tradition, and acknowledged
by the most important legal thinkers of our past—mattered. If
my field? Do I have the right to banish it from my property? Am I allowed
to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we
set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38747584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38748336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46934304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46935056"></a><p>
In 1945, these questions became a federal case. When North Carolina
farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens
because of low-flying military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently
flew into the barn walls and died), the Causbys filed a lawsuit saying
that the government was trespassing on their land. The airplanes,
of course, never touched the surface of the Causbys' land. But if, as
-Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an indefinite
-extent, upwards,</span>»</span> then the government was trespassing on their
+Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">an indefinite
+extent, upwards,</span>”</span> then the government was trespassing on their
property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38750448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38751200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46937168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46937920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></a><p>
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had
declared the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the
heavens, then Congress's declaration could well have been an unconstitutional
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> of property without compensation. The Court acknowledged
-that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of
-the land extended to the periphery of the universe.</span>»</span> But Justice Douglas
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> of property without compensation. The Court acknowledged
+that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of
+the land extended to the periphery of the universe.</span>”</span> But Justice Douglas
had no patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph, hundreds of
years of property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways,
seriously interfere with their control and development in the public
interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only
-the public has a just claim.<a href="#ftn.idp38757440" class="footnote" name="idp38757440"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a>
+the public has a just claim.<a href="#ftn.idp46944656" class="footnote" name="idp46944656"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common sense revolts at the idea.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38762800"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Common sense revolts at the idea.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46950016"></a><p>
This is how the law usually works. Not often this abruptly or
impatiently, but eventually, this is how it works. It was Douglas's style not to
dither. Other justices would have blathered on for pages to reach the
-conclusion that Douglas holds in a single line: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common sense revolts
-at the idea.</span>»</span> But whether it takes pages or a few words, it is the special
+conclusion that Douglas holds in a single line: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Common sense revolts
+at the idea.</span>”</span> But whether it takes pages or a few words, it is the special
genius of a common law system, as ours is, that the law adjusts to the
technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were
as solid as rock in one age crumble in another.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38765904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38766688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38767504"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46953120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46953904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46954720"></a><p>
Or at least, this is how things happen when there's no one powerful
on the other side of the change. The Causbys were just farmers. And
though there were no doubt many like them who were upset by the
hard to unite and stop the idea, and the technology, that the Wright
brothers had birthed. The Wright brothers spat airplanes into the
technological meme pool; the idea then spread like a virus in a chicken
-coop; farmers like the Causbys found themselves surrounded by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">what
-seemed reasonable</span>»</span> given the technology that the Wrights had produced.
+coop; farmers like the Causbys found themselves surrounded by <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">what
+seemed reasonable</span>”</span> given the technology that the Wrights had produced.
They could stand on their farms, dead chickens in hand, and
shake their fists at these newfangled technologies all they wanted.
They could call their representatives or even file a lawsuit. But in the
-end, the force of what seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">obvious</span>»</span> to everyone else—the power of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span>—would prevail. Their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">private interest</span>»</span> would not be
+end, the force of what seems <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">obvious</span>”</span> to everyone else—the power of
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">common sense</span>”</span>—would prevail. Their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">private interest</span>”</span> would not be
allowed to defeat an obvious public gain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38771392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38772720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38774064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38775040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38777248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38778000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38778752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46958608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46959936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46961280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46962256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46964464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46965216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46965968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> is one of
America's forgotten inventor geniuses. He came to the great American
inventor scene just after the titans Thomas Edison and Alexander
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:
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New York, operating on
-frequency modulation at two and a half meters.</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New York, operating on
+frequency modulation at two and a half meters.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
The audience was hearing something no one had thought possible:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">music
-box.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp38786592" class="footnote" name="idp38786592"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a>
+live-ness rarely if ever heard before from a radio <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">music
+box.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp46974416" class="footnote" name="idp46974416"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrca"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediaownershipconcentrationin"></a><p>
As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly
superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Armstrong
the United States, but the stations in large cities were all owned by
a handful of networks.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38792464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46980288"></a><p>
RCA's president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong's, was eager
that Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. So
Sarnoff was quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device
-that removed static from <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span> But when Armstrong demonstrated
+that removed static from <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radio.</span>”</span> But when Armstrong demonstrated
his invention, Sarnoff was not pleased.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp38783264" class="footnote" name="idp38783264"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38798240"></a><p>
+RCA.<a href="#ftn.idp46971088" class="footnote" name="idp46971088"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46986112"></a><p>
Armstrong's invention threatened RCA's AM empire, so the company
launched a campaign to smother FM radio. While FM may have been a
superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician. As one author
this threat to corporate position. For FM, if allowed to develop
unrestrained, posed … a complete reordering of radio power
… and the eventual overthrow of the carefully restricted AM system
-on which RCA had grown to power.<a href="#ftn.idp38801808" class="footnote" name="idp38801808"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a>
+on which RCA had grown to power.<a href="#ftn.idp46989632" class="footnote" name="idp46989632"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfcconfmradio"></a><p>
RCA at first kept the technology in house, insisting that further
tests were needed. When, after two years of testing, Armstrong grew
The series of body blows that FM radio received right after the
war, in a series of rulings manipulated through the FCC by the
big radio interests, were almost incredible in their force and
-deviousness.<a href="#ftn.idp38806480" class="footnote" name="idp38806480"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38807248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38808112"></a><p>
+deviousness.<a href="#ftn.idp46994176" class="footnote" name="idp46994176"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46994944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46995920"></a><p>
To make room in the spectrum for RCA's latest gamble, television,
FM radio users were to be moved to a totally new spectrum band. The
power of FM radio stations was also cut, meaning FM could no longer
FM relaying stations would mean radio stations would have to buy
wired links from AT&T.) The spread of FM radio was thus choked, at
least temporarily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38809888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38810864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46997696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp46998672"></a><p>
Armstrong resisted RCA's efforts. In response, RCA resisted
Armstrong's patents. After incorporating FM technology into the
emerging standard for television, RCA declared the patents
would not even cover Armstrong's lawyers' fees. Defeated, broken, and
now broke, in 1954 Armstrong wrote a short note to his wife and then
stepped out of a thirteenth-story window to his death.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38812096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38813952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38814928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38815680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
46999904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47001760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47002736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47003488"></a><p>
This is how the law sometimes works. Not often this tragically, and
rarely with heroic drama, but sometimes, this is how it works. From
the beginning, government and government agencies have been subject to
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38817920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38818896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47006352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47007328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There's no</strong></span> 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.<a href="#ftn.idp38822576" class="footnote" name="idp38822576"><sup class="footnote">[10]</sup></a>
+before.<a href="#ftn.idp47011008" class="footnote" name="idp47011008"><sup class="footnote">[10]</sup></a>
That number could well exceed two thirds of the nation by the end
of 2004.
</p><p>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38826384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38827360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38828112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38830608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47014816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47015792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47016544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47019040"></a><p>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commercial culture</span>»</span> I mean that part of our
+regulation of each. By <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">commercial culture</span>”</span> I mean that part of our
culture that is produced and sold or produced to be sold. By
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial culture</span>»</span> I mean all the rest. When old men sat around
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">noncommercial culture</span>”</span> I mean all the rest. When old men sat around
parks or on
street corners telling stories that kids and others consumed, that was
-noncommercial culture. When Noah Webster published his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Reader,</span>»</span> or
+noncommercial culture. When Noah Webster published his <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Reader,</span>”</span> or
Joel Barlow his poetry, that was commercial culture.
</p><p>
At the beginning of our history, and for just about the whole of our
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span> The ordinary ways in which ordinary
+left this culture <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free.</span>”</span> 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.
then quite extensively, the law protected the incentives of creators by
granting them exclusive rights to their creative work, so that they could
sell those exclusive rights in a commercial
-marketplace.<a href="#ftn.idp38837504" class="footnote" name="idp38837504"><sup class="footnote">[11]</sup></a>
+marketplace.<a href="#ftn.idp47025568" class="footnote" name="idp47025568"><sup class="footnote">[11]</sup></a>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38840544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38841552"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47028608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47029616"></a><p>
This rough divide between the free and the controlled has now
-been erased.<a href="#ftn.idp38842816" class="footnote" name="idp38842816"><sup class="footnote">[12]</sup></a>
+been erased.<a href="#ftn.idp47030880" class="footnote" name="idp47030880"><sup class="footnote">[12]</sup></a>
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
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38844752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38846320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38847072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47032816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47034384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47035136"></a><p>
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
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38848896"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47036960"></a><p>
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
more efficient, more vibrant technology for building culture. They are
succeeding in their plan to remake the Internet before the Internet
remakes them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38851104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38853456"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47040560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47041424"></a><p>
It doesn't seem this way to many. The battles over copyright and the
Internet seem remote to most. To the few who follow them, they seem
-mainly about a much simpler brace of questions—whether <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> will
-be permitted, and whether <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> will be protected. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war</span>»</span> that
+mainly about a much simpler brace of questions—whether <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> will
+be permitted, and whether <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> will be protected. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">war</span>”</span> that
has been waged against the technologies of the Internet—what
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) president Jack Valenti
-calls his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">own terrorist war</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp38856688" class="footnote" name="idp38856688"><sup class="footnote">[13]</sup></a>—has been framed as a battle about the
+calls his <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">own terrorist war</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47044736" class="footnote" name="idp47044736"><sup class="footnote">[13]</sup></a>—has been framed as a battle about the
rule of law and respect for property. To know which side to take in this
war, most think that we need only decide whether we're for property or
against it.
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
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> I believe that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong, and that the
-law, properly tuned, should punish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> whether on or off the
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property.</span>”</span> I believe that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> is wrong, and that the
+law, properly tuned, should punish <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> whether on or off the
Internet.
</p><p>
But those simple beliefs mask a much more fundamental question
and a much more dramatic change. My fear is that unless we come to see
-this change, the war to rid the world of Internet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates</span>»</span> will also rid our
+this change, the war to rid the world of Internet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirates</span>”</span> will also rid our
culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38861344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38862352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38863360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38864112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47049312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47050320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47051328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47052080"></a><p>
These values built a tradition that, for at least the first 180 years of
our Republic, guaranteed creators the right to build freely upon their
past, and protected creators and innovators from either state or private
control. The First Amendment protected creators against state control.
-And as Professor Neil Netanel powerfully argues,<a href="#ftn.idp38865472" class="footnote" name="idp38865472"><sup class="footnote">[14]</sup></a>
+And as Professor Neil Netanel powerfully argues,<a href="#ftn.idp41252544" class="footnote" name="idp41252544"><sup class="footnote">[14]</sup></a>
copyright law, properly balanced, protected creators against private
control. Our tradition was thus neither Soviet nor the tradition of
patrons. It instead carved out a wide berth within which creators
nobility of any form that is alien to our tradition.
</p><p>
The story that follows is about this war. It is not about the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">centrality of technology</span>»</span> to ordinary life. I don't believe in gods,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">centrality of technology</span>”</span> to ordinary life. I don't believe in gods,
digital or otherwise. Nor is it an effort to demonize any individual
or group, for neither do I believe in a devil, corporate or
otherwise. It is not a morality tale. Nor is it a call to jihad
Internet technologies to continue. There will be great harm to our
tradition and culture if it is allowed to continue unchecked. We must
come to understand the source of this war. We must resolve it soon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38871248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38872000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
-<span class="strong"><strong>Like the Causbys'</strong></span> battle, this war is, in part, about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41258560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41259344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Like the Causbys'</strong></span> battle, this war is, in part, about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> The
property of this war is not as tangible as the Causbys', and no
innocent chicken has yet to lose its life. Yet the ideas surrounding
-this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> are as obvious to most as the Causbys' claim about the
+this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> are as obvious to most as the Causbys' claim about the
sacredness of their farm was to them. We are the Causbys. Most of us
take for granted the extraordinarily powerful claims that the owners
-of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> now assert. Most of us, like the Causbys,
+of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> now assert. Most of us, like the Causbys,
treat these claims as obvious. And hence we, like the Causbys, object
when a new technology interferes with this property. It is as plain to
us as it was to them that the new technologies of the Internet are
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trespassing</span>»</span> upon legitimate claims of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> It is as plain to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">trespassing</span>”</span> upon legitimate claims of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> It is as plain to
us as it was to them that the law should intervene to stop this
trespass.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38877664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38878416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38879168"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47074384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47075136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47075888"></a><p>
And thus, when geeks and technologists defend their Armstrong or
Wright brothers technology, most of us are simply unsympathetic.
Common sense does not revolt. Unlike in the case of the unlucky
the lucky Wright brothers, the Internet has not inspired a revolution
on its side.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38880848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47077664"></a><p>
My hope is to push this common sense along. I have become increasingly
amazed by the power of this idea of intellectual property and, more
importantly, its power to disable critical thought by policy makers
and citizens. There has never been a time in our history when more of
-our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">culture</span>»</span> was as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">owned</span>»</span> as it is now. And yet there has never
+our <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">culture</span>”</span> was as <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">owned</span>”</span> as it is now. And yet there has never
been a time when the concentration of power to control the
<span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span> of culture has been as unquestioningly
accepted as it is now.
silent in the face of these extremes because, as with Armstrong versus
RCA, the more powerful side has ensured that it has the more powerful
view?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38886272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38887024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47083008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47083760"></a><p>
I don't mean to be mysterious. My own views are resolved. I believe it
was right for common sense to revolt against the extremism of the
Causbys. I believe it would be right for common sense to revolt
-against the extreme claims made today on behalf of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual
-property.</span>»</span> What the law demands today is increasingly as silly as a
+against the extreme claims made today on behalf of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual
+property.</span>”</span> What the law demands today is increasingly as silly as a
sheriff arresting an airplane for trespass. But the consequences of
this silliness will be much more profound.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38889264"></a><p>
-<span class="strong"><strong>The struggle</strong></span> that rages just now centers on two ideas: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> and
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> My aim in this book's next two parts is to explore these two
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47086000"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>The struggle</strong></span> that rages just now centers on two ideas: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> and
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> My aim in this book's next two parts is to explore these two
ideas.
</p><p>
My method is not the usual method of an academic. I don't want to
</p><p>
The two sections set up the core claim of this book: that while the
Internet has indeed produced something fantastic and new, our
-government, pushed by big media to respond to this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something new,</span>»</span> is
+government, pushed by big media to respond to this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">something new,</span>”</span> is
destroying something very old. Rather than understanding the changes
-the Internet might permit, and rather than taking time to let <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common
-sense</span>»</span> resolve how best to respond, we are allowing those most
+the Internet might permit, and rather than taking time to let <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">common
+sense</span>”</span> resolve how best to respond, we are allowing those most
threatened by the changes to use their power to change the
law—and more importantly, to use their power to change something
fundamental about who we have always been.
depressingly compromised process of making law. This book is the story
of one more consequence of this form of corruption—a consequence
to which most of us remain oblivious.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp38744368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38744368" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp46931088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp46931088" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>
St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South Hackensack, N.J.:
Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38757440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38757440" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp46944656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp46944656" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>
United States v. Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. The Court did find
-that there could be a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> if the government's use of its land
+that there could be a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> if the government's use of its land
effectively destroyed the value of the Causbys' land. This example was
-suggested to me by Keith Aoki's wonderful piece, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">(Intellectual)
+suggested to me by Keith Aoki's wonderful piece, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">(Intellectual)
Property and Sovereignty: Notes Toward a Cultural Geography of
-Authorship,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. See also Paul
+Authorship,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. See also Paul
Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1984),
1112–13.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp38760864"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp38760400"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38786592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38786592" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp46948080"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp46947616"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp46974416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp46974416" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>
Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong</em>
(Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38783264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38783264" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a> See <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the
-Electronic Era,</span>»</span> First Electronic Church of America, at
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp46971088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp46971088" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a> See <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the
+Electronic Era,</span>”</span> First Electronic Church of America, at
www.webstationone.com/fecha, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38801808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38801808" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38806480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38806480" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp46989632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp46989632" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp46994176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp46994176" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38822576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38822576" class="para"><sup class="para">[10] </sup></a>
-Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
-Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47011008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47011008" class="para"><sup class="para">[10] </sup></a>
+Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
+Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>”</span> Pew Internet and American
Life Project, 15 April 2003: 6, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38837504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38837504" class="para"><sup class="para">[11] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47025568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47025568" class="para"><sup class="para">[11] </sup></a>
This is not the only purpose of copyright, though it is the overwhelmingly
primary purpose of the copyright established in the federal constitution.
State copyright law historically protected not just the commercial interest in
publication, but also a privacy interest. By granting authors the exclusive
right to first publication, state copyright law gave authors the power to
control the spread of facts about them. See Samuel D. Warren and Louis
-D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Harvard
+D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Harvard
Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193, 198–200.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp38760736"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38842816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38842816" class="para"><sup class="para">[12] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp46947952"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47030880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47030880" class="para"><sup class="para">[12] </sup></a>
See Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York: Prometheus Books,
2001), ch. 13.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp38843584"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38856688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38856688" class="para"><sup class="para">[13] </sup></a>
-Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates
-Use New Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47031648"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47044736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47044736" class="para"><sup class="para">[13] </sup></a>
+Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates
+Use New Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
Times</em>, 17 January 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38865472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38865472" class="para"><sup class="para">[14] </sup></a>
-Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41252544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41252544" class="para"><sup class="para">[14] </sup></a>
+Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law
Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp38866752"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">
«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp38897424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38899664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38900416"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp41253920"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">Piracy</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp47094160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47096400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47097152"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Since the inception</strong></span> of the law regulating creative property, there has
-been a war against <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> The precise contours of this concept,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is easy to
+been a war against <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span> The precise contours of this concept,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is easy to
capture. As Lord Mansfield wrote in a case that extended the reach of
English copyright law to include sheet music,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
A person may use the copy by playing it, but he has no right to
rob the author of the profit, by multiplying copies and disposing
-of them for his own use.<a href="#ftn.idp38903904" class="footnote" name="idp38903904"><sup class="footnote">[15]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38905568"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp38906672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
-Today we are in the middle of another <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war</span>»</span> against <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> The
+of them for his own use.<a href="#ftn.idp47100640" class="footnote" name="idp47100640"><sup class="footnote">[15]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47102304"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp47103408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
+Today we are in the middle of another <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">war</span>”</span> against <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span> The
Internet has provoked this war. The Internet makes possible the
efficient spread of content. Peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing is among
the most efficient of the efficient technologies the Internet
The network doesn't discriminate between the sharing of copyrighted
and uncopyrighted content. Thus has there been a vast amount of
sharing of copyrighted content. That sharing in turn has excited the
-war, as copyright owners fear the sharing will <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob the author of the
-profit.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38912032"></a><p>
+war, as copyright owners fear the sharing will <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rob the author of the
+profit.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47108768"></a><p>
The warriors have turned to the courts, to the legislatures, and
-increasingly to technology to defend their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> against this
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> A generation of Americans, the warriors warn, is being
-raised to believe that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> should be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span> Forget tattoos,
+increasingly to technology to defend their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> against this
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span> A generation of Americans, the warriors warn, is being
+raised to believe that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> should be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free.</span>”</span> Forget tattoos,
never mind body piercing—our kids are becoming
<span class="emphasis"><em>thieves</em></span>!
</p><p>
-There's no doubt that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong, and that pirates should be
+There's no doubt that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> is wrong, and that pirates should be
punished. But before we summon the executioners, we should put this
-notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> in some context. For as the concept is increasingly
+notion of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> in some context. For as the concept is increasingly
used, at its core is an extraordinary idea that is almost certainly wrong.
</p><p>
The idea goes something like this:
should have their permission. The taking of something of value
from someone else without permission is wrong. It is a form of
piracy.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38918528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38919280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38920032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38920784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47115264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47116016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47116768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47117520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
This view runs deep within the current debates. It is what NYU law
-professor Rochelle Dreyfuss criticizes as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span>
-theory of creative property<a href="#ftn.idp38925792" class="footnote" name="idp38925792"><sup class="footnote">[16]</sup></a>
+professor Rochelle Dreyfuss criticizes as the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>”</span>
+theory of creative property<a href="#ftn.idp47122528" class="footnote" name="idp47122528"><sup class="footnote">[16]</sup></a>
—if there is value, then someone must have a
right to that value. It is the perspective that led a composers' rights
organization, ASCAP, to sue the Girl Scouts for failing to pay for the
-songs that girls sang around Girl Scout campfires.<a href="#ftn.idp38915024" class="footnote" name="idp38915024"><sup class="footnote">[17]</sup></a>
-There was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">value</span>»</span> (the songs) so there must have been a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span>—even against the Girl Scouts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38932416"></a><p>
+songs that girls sang around Girl Scout campfires.<a href="#ftn.idp47111760" class="footnote" name="idp47111760"><sup class="footnote">[17]</sup></a>
+There was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">value</span>”</span> (the songs) so there must have been a
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span>—even against the Girl Scouts.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47129152"></a><p>
This idea is certainly a possible understanding of how creative
property should work. It might well be a possible design for a system
-of law protecting creative property. But the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span>
+of law protecting creative property. But the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>”</span>
theory of creative property has never been America's theory of
creative property. It has never taken hold within our law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38934704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38937408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47131440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47134144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
Instead, in our tradition, intellectual property is an instrument. It
sets the groundwork for a richly creative society but remains
subservient to the value of creativity. The current debate has this
work on the one hand and building upon or transforming that work on
the other. Copyright law at its birth had only publishing as its concern;
copyright law today regulates both.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38941456"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47138192"></a><p>
Before the technologies of the Internet, this conflation didn't matter
all that much. The technologies of publishing were expensive; that
meant the vast majority of publishing was commercial. Commercial
entities could bear the burden of the law—even the burden of the
Byzantine complexity that copyright law has become. It was just one
more expense of doing business.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38942736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38944272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38945024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47139472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47141008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47141760"></a><p>
But with the birth of the Internet, this natural limit to the reach of
the law has disappeared. The law controls not just the creativity of
commercial creators but effectively that of anyone. Although that
expansion would not matter much if copyright law regulated only
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copying,</span>»</span> when the law regulates as broadly and obscurely as it does,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copying,</span>”</span> when the law regulates as broadly and obscurely as it does,
the extension matters a lot. The burden of this law now vastly
outweighs any original benefit—certainly as it affects
noncommercial creativity, and increasingly as it affects commercial
creativity with insanely complex and vague rules and with the threat
of obscenely severe penalties. We may
-be seeing, as Richard Florida writes, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rise of the Creative
-Class.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp38947968" class="footnote" name="idp38947968"><sup class="footnote">[18]</sup></a>
+be seeing, as Richard Florida writes, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rise of the Creative
+Class.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47144704" class="footnote" name="idp47144704"><sup class="footnote">[18]</sup></a>
Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary rise of regulation of
this creative class.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38951408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47148144"></a><p>
These burdens make no sense in our tradition. We should begin by
understanding that tradition a bit more and by placing in their proper
-context the current battles about behavior labeled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span>
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp38903904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38903904" class="para"><sup class="para">[15] </sup></a>
+context the current battles about behavior labeled <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp47100640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47100640" class="para"><sup class="para">[15] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38925792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38925792" class="para"><sup class="para">[16] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47122528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47122528" class="para"><sup class="para">[16] </sup></a>
-See Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
-in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38915024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38915024" class="para"><sup class="para">[17] </sup></a>
+See Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
+in the Pepsi Generation,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47111760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47111760" class="para"><sup class="para">[17] </sup></a>
-Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
-Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21 August 1996, available at
+Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
+Up,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21 August 1996, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>; Jonathan
-Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
-Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 24 November 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp38930640"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38947968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38947968" class="para"><sup class="para">[18] </sup></a>
+Zittrain, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
+Speech, No One Wins,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 24 November 2002.
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47127376"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47144704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47144704" class="para"><sup class="para">[18] </sup></a>
In <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York:
Basic Books, 2002), Richard Florida documents a shift in the nature of
and significance of this change, but I also believe the conditions
under which it will be enabled are much more tenuous.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp38949536"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp38950288"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47146272"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47147024"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Chapter 1. Chapter One: Creators</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimatedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsanimated"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatwillie"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmickeymouse"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1928</strong></span>, a cartoon character was born. An early Mickey Mouse
made his debut in May of that year, in a silent flop called <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
They responded almost instinctively to this union of sound and
motion. I thought they were kidding me. So they put me in the audience
and ran the action again. It was terrible, but it was wonderful! And
-it was something new!<a href="#ftn.idp38968112" class="footnote" name="idp38968112"><sup class="footnote">[19]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38969600"></a><p>
+it was something new!<a href="#ftn.idp47164848" class="footnote" name="idp47164848"><sup class="footnote">[19]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47166336"></a><p>
Disney's then partner, and one of animation's most extraordinary
-talents, Ub Iwerks, put it more strongly: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I have never been so thrilled
-in my life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.</span>»</span>
+talents, Ub Iwerks, put it more strongly: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I have never been so thrilled
+in my life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
Disney had created something very new, based upon something relatively
new. Synchronized sound brought life to a form of creativity that had
Disney's invention that set the standard that others struggled to
match. And quite often, Disney's great genius, his spark of
creativity, was built upon the work of others.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38971600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47168336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
This much is familiar. What you might not know is that 1928 also marks
another important transition. In that year, a comic (as opposed to
cartoon) genius created his last independently produced silent film.
Willie.
The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat Willie is a
-direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<a href="#ftn.idp38981840" class="footnote" name="idp38981840"><sup class="footnote">[20]</sup></a>
+direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<a href="#ftn.idp47178576" class="footnote" name="idp47178576"><sup class="footnote">[20]</sup></a>
and both are built upon a common song as a source. It is not just from
the invention of synchronized sound in <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> that we
get <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of
-Steamboat Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span>
+Steamboat Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>”</span>
that we get Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey
Mouse.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
38987888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38988864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38989840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp38990816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
-This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowing</span>»</span> was nothing unique, either for Disney or for the
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47184624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47185600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47186576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47187552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
+This <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">borrowing</span>”</span> was nothing unique, either for Disney or for the
industry. Disney was always parroting the feature-length mainstream
-films of his day.<a href="#ftn.idp38995296" class="footnote" name="idp38995296"><sup class="footnote">[21]</sup></a>
+films of his day.<a href="#ftn.idp47192032" class="footnote" name="idp47192032"><sup class="footnote">[21]</sup></a>
So did many others. Early cartoons are filled with
knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of
ancient stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the
creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his
own extraordinary talent, and then burned that mix into the soul of
his culture. Rip, mix, and burn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39008000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47204736"></a><p>
This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should
remember and celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no
creativity except this kind. We don't need to go that far to recognize
-its importance. We could call this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney creativity,</span>»</span> though that
-would be a bit misleading. It is, more precisely, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney
-creativity</span>»</span>—a form of expression and genius that builds upon the
+its importance. We could call this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Disney creativity,</span>”</span> though that
+would be a bit misleading. It is, more precisely, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Walt Disney
+creativity</span>”</span>—a form of expression and genius that builds upon the
culture around us and makes it something different.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39010512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39011488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39012464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39013440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47207248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47208224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47209200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47210176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was
relatively fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was
therefore quite vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around
thirty years—for that minority of creative work that was in fact
-copyrighted.<a href="#ftn.idp39010128" class="footnote" name="idp39010128"><sup class="footnote">[22]</sup></a>
+copyrighted.<a href="#ftn.idp47206864" class="footnote" name="idp47206864"><sup class="footnote">[22]</sup></a>
That means that for thirty years, on average, the authors or
-copyright holders of a creative work had an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive right</span>»</span> to control
+copyright holders of a creative work had an <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive right</span>”</span> to control
certain uses of the work. To use this copyrighted work in limited ways
required the permission of the copyright owner.
</p><p>
At the end of a copyright term, a work passes into the public domain.
No permission is then needed to draw upon or use that work. No
-permission and, hence, no lawyers. The public domain is a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer-free
-zone.</span>»</span> Thus, most of the content from the nineteenth century was free
+permission and, hence, no lawyers. The public domain is a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lawyer-free
+zone.</span>”</span> Thus, most of the content from the nineteenth century was free
for Disney to use and build upon in 1928. It was free for
anyone— whether connected or not, whether rich or not, whether
approved or not—to use and build upon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39023488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39024848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47220224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47221584"></a><p>
This is the ways things always were—until quite recently. For most
of our history, the public domain was just over the horizon. From
until 1978, the average copyright term was never more than thirty-two
to now be free for the next Walt Disney to build upon without
permission. Yet today, the public domain is presumptive only for
content from before the Great Depression.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39027072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39028048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39029024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39030000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39030976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39031952"></a><p>
-<span class="strong"><strong>Of course</strong></span>, Walt Disney had no monopoly on <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney creativity.</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47223808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47224784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47225760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47226736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47227712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47228688"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>Of course</strong></span>, Walt Disney had no monopoly on <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Walt Disney creativity.</span>”</span>
Nor does America. The norm of free culture has, until recently, and
except within totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and quite
universal.
Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture. That's an
unattractive characteristic of ours. We're likely to misunderstand
much about manga, because few of us have ever read anything close to
-the stories that these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">graphic novels</span>»</span> tell. For the Japanese, manga
-cover every aspect of social life. For us, comics are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">men in tights.</span>»</span>
+the stories that these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">graphic novels</span>”</span> tell. For the Japanese, manga
+cover every aspect of social life. For us, comics are <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">men in tights.</span>”</span>
And anyway, it's not as if the New York subways are filled with
readers of Joyce or even Hemingway. People of different cultures
distract themselves in different ways, the Japanese in this
significantly. A doujinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and
develop it differently—with a different story line. Or the comic can
keep the character in character but change its look slightly. There is no
-formula for what makes the doujinshi sufficiently <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">different.</span>»</span> But they
+formula for what makes the doujinshi sufficiently <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">different.</span>”</span> But they
must be different if they are to be considered true doujinshi. Indeed,
there are committees that review doujinshi for inclusion within shows
and reject any copycat comic that is merely a copy.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt2"></a><p>
These copycat comics are not a tiny part of the manga market. They are
-huge. More than 33,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">circles</span>»</span> of creators from across Japan produce
+huge. More than 33,000 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">circles</span>”</span> of creators from across Japan produce
these bits of Walt Disney creativity. More than 450,000 Japanese come
together twice a year, in the largest public gathering in the country,
to exchange and sell them. This market exists in parallel to the
competes with that market, but there is no sustained effort by those
who control the commercial manga market to shut the doujinshi market
down. It flourishes, despite the competition and despite the law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39053808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47250544"></a><p>
The most puzzling feature of the doujinshi market, for those trained
in the law, at least, is that it is allowed to exist at all. Under
Japanese copyright law, which in this respect (on paper) mirrors
American copyright law, the doujinshi market is an illegal
-one. Doujinshi are plainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> There is no general
+one. Doujinshi are plainly <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>”</span> There is no general
practice by doujinshi artists of securing the permission of the manga
creators. Instead, the practice is simply to take and modify the
creations of others, as Walt Disney did with <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
-Jr</em>. Under both Japanese and American law, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> without
+Jr</em>. Under both Japanese and American law, that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> without
the permission of the original copyright owner is illegal. It is an
infringement of the original copyright to make a copy or a derivative
work without the original copyright owner's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39056848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47253584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
Yet this illegal market exists and indeed flourishes in Japan, and in
the view of many, it is precisely because it exists that Japanese manga
-flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
+flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The
early days of comics in America are very much like what's going on
in Japan now. … American comics were born out of copying each
other. … That's how [the artists] learn to draw — by going into comic
-books and not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them</span>»</span>
-and building from them.<a href="#ftn.idp39060592" class="footnote" name="idp39060592"><sup class="footnote">[23]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39061872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39062848"></a><p>
+books and not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them</span>”</span>
+and building from them.<a href="#ftn.idp47257328" class="footnote" name="idp47257328"><sup class="footnote">[23]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47258608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47259584"></a><p>
American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part
because of the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are
-allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">there are these rules
-and you have to stick to them.</span>»</span> There are things Superman <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cannot</span>»</span>
-do. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">As a creator, it's frustrating having to stick to some parameters
-which are fifty years old.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39065456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39067920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></a><p>
+allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">there are these rules
+and you have to stick to them.</span>”</span> There are things Superman <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cannot</span>”</span>
+do. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">As a creator, it's frustrating having to stick to some parameters
+which are fifty years old.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47262192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47264656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></a><p>
The norm in Japan mitigates this legal difficulty. Some say it is
precisely the benefit accruing to the Japanese manga market that
explains the mitigation. Temple University law professor Salil Mehra,
for example, hypothesizes that the manga market accepts these
technical violations because they spur the manga market to be more
wealthy and productive. Everyone would be worse off if doujinshi were
-banned, so the law does not ban doujinshi.<a href="#ftn.idp39070624" class="footnote" name="idp39070624"><sup class="footnote">[24]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39073152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39074128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39075104"></a><p>
+banned, so the law does not ban doujinshi.<a href="#ftn.idp47267360" class="footnote" name="idp47267360"><sup class="footnote">[24]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47269888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47270864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47271840"></a><p>
The problem with this story, however, as Mehra plainly acknowledges,
is that the mechanism producing this laissez faire response is not
clear. It may well be that the market as a whole is better off if
why individual copyright owners don't sue nonetheless. If the law has
no general exception for doujinshi, and indeed in some cases
individual manga artists have sued doujinshi artists, why is there not
-a more general pattern of blocking this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free taking</span>»</span> by the doujinshi
+a more general pattern of blocking this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free taking</span>”</span> by the doujinshi
culture?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39077888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39078864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47274112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47275088"></a><p>
I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question
as often as I could. Perhaps the best account in the end was offered by
-a friend from a major Japanese law firm. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We don't have enough
-lawyers,</span>»</span> he told me one afternoon. There <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just aren't enough resources
-to prosecute cases like this.</span>»</span>
+a friend from a major Japanese law firm. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">We don't have enough
+lawyers,</span>”</span> he told me one afternoon. There <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">just aren't enough resources
+to prosecute cases like this.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
This is a theme to which we will return: that regulation by law is a
function of both the words on the books and the costs of making those
uncompensated sharing? Does piracy here hurt the victims of the
piracy, or does it help them? Would lawyers fighting this piracy help
their clients or hurt them?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39082512"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47278736"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Let's pause</strong></span> for a moment.
</p><p>
If you're like I was a decade ago, or like most people are when they
first start thinking about these issues, then just about now you should
be puzzled about something you hadn't thought through before.
</p><p>
-We live in a world that celebrates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> I am one of those
+We live in a world that celebrates <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> I am one of those
celebrants. I believe in the value of property in general, and I also
believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39086176" class="footnote" name="idp39086176"><sup class="footnote">[25]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47282400" class="footnote" name="idp47282400"><sup class="footnote">[25]</sup></a>
A large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large,
diverse, and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual
property.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39092288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47288512"></a><p>
But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is
-plenty of value out there that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> doesn't capture. I don't
-mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">money can't buy you love,</span>»</span> but rather, value that is plainly
+plenty of value out there that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> doesn't capture. I don't
+mean <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">money can't buy you love,</span>”</span> but rather, value that is plainly
part of a process of production, including commercial as well as
noncommercial production. If Disney animators had stolen a set of
pencils to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in
unnoticed. Yet there was nothing wrong, at least under the law of the
day, with Disney's taking from Buster Keaton or from the Brothers
Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the taking from Keaton because
-Disney's use would have been considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> There was nothing
+Disney's use would have been considered <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair.</span>”</span> There was nothing
wrong with the taking from the Grimms because the Grimms' work was in
the public domain.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreeculturederivativeworksbasedon"></a><p>
things remain free for the taking within a free culture, and that
freedom is good.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39097824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39100288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47294048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47296512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
The same with the doujinshi culture. If a doujinshi artist broke into
a publisher's office and ran off with a thousand copies of his latest
work—or even one copy—without paying, we'd have no hesitation in
saying the artist was wrong. In addition to having trespassed, he would
have stolen something of value. The law bans that stealing in whatever
form, whether large or small.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39104992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47301216"></a><p>
Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to
-say that the copycat comic artists are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing.</span>»</span> This form of Walt
+say that the copycat comic artists are <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stealing.</span>”</span> This form of Walt
Disney creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in
particular find it hard to say why.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39107552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39108528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39109504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39110480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39111456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39112432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39113408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47303776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47304752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47305728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47306704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47307680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47308656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47309632"></a><p>
It's the same with a thousand examples that appear everywhere once you
begin to look. Scientists build upon the work of other scientists
-without asking or paying for the privilege. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Excuse me, Professor
+without asking or paying for the privilege. (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Excuse me, Professor
Einstein, but may I have permission to use your theory of relativity
-to show that you were wrong about quantum physics?</span>»</span>) Acting companies
+to show that you were wrong about quantum physics?</span>”</span>) Acting companies
perform adaptations of the works of Shakespeare without securing
permission from anyone. (Does <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> believe
Shakespeare would be better spread within our culture if there were a
every society has left a certain bit of its culture free for the taking—free
societies more fully than unfree, perhaps, but all societies to some degree.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39116640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47312864"></a><p>
The hard question is therefore not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> a
culture is free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard
-question instead is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?</span>»</span>
+question instead is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?</span>”</span>
How much, and how broadly, is the culture free for others to take and
build upon? Is that freedom limited to party members? To members of
the royal family? To the top ten corporations on the New York Stock
Free cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to
build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less. Ours was a
free culture. It is becoming much less so.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp39120896"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp38968112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38968112" class="para"><sup class="para">[19] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp47317536"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp47164848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47164848" class="para"><sup class="para">[19] </sup></a>
Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34–35.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38981840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38981840" class="para"><sup class="para">[20] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47178576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47178576" class="para"><sup class="para">[20] </sup></a>
I am grateful to David Gerstein and his careful history, described at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.
According to Dave Smith of the Disney Archives, Disney paid royalties to
-use the music for five songs in <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
-Simpleton</span>»</span> (Delille), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>»</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry No. 1</span>»</span>
-(Baron), and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). A sixth song, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the
-Straw,</span>»</span> was already in the public domain. Letter from David Smith to
+use the music for five songs in <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The
+Simpleton</span>”</span> (Delille), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>”</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry No. 1</span>”</span>
+(Baron), and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>”</span> (Lakay). A sixth song, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Turkey in the
+Straw,</span>”</span> was already in the public domain. Letter from David Smith to
Harry Surden, 10 July 2003, on file with author.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp38995296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp38995296" class="para"><sup class="para">[21] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47192032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47192032" class="para"><sup class="para">[21] </sup></a>
-He was also a fan of the public domain. See Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
-that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5 March 2002, at
+He was also a fan of the public domain. See Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Mouse
+that Ate the Public Domain,</span>”</span> Findlaw, 5 March 2002, at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39010128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39010128" class="para"><sup class="para">[22] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47206864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47206864" class="para"><sup class="para">[22] </sup></a>
Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
-initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">average</span>»</span> term by
+initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">average</span>”</span> term by
determining
the weighted average of total registrations for any particular year,
and the proportion renewing. Thus, if 100 copyrights are registered in year
term is 32.2 years. For the renewal data and other relevant data, see the
Web site associated with this book, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #6</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39060592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39060592" class="para"><sup class="para">[23] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47257328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47257328" class="para"><sup class="para">[23] </sup></a>
For an excellent history, see Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing Comics</em> (New
York: Perennial, 2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39070624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39070624" class="para"><sup class="para">[24] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47267360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47267360" class="para"><sup class="para">[24] </sup></a>
-See Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
-Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law
-Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">[T]here might be a collective economic
+See Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
+Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law
+Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">[T]here might be a collective economic
rationality that would lead manga and anime artists to forgo bringing
legal actions for infringement. One hypothesis is that all manga
artists may be better off collectively if they set aside their
individual self-interest and decide not to press their legal
-rights. This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma solved.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39086176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39086176" class="para"><sup class="para">[25] </sup></a>
+rights. This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma solved.</span>”</span>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47282400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47282400" class="para"><sup class="para">[25] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39086816"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47283040"></a>
The term <em class="citetitle">intellectual property</em> is of relatively recent origin. See
Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York
University Press, 2001). See also Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>
(New York: Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately
-describes a set of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights — copyright, patents,
+describes a set of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> rights — copyright, patents,
trademark, and trade-secret — but the nature of those rights is
very different.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. Chapter Two: <span class="quote">
«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp39123632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. Chapter Two: <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp47320272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1839</strong></span>, Louis Daguerre invented
the first practical technology for producing what we would call
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">photographs.</span>»</span> Appropriately enough, they were called
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">daguerreotypes.</span>»</span> The process was complicated and
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">photographs.</span>”</span> Appropriately enough, they were called
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">daguerreotypes.</span>”</span> The process was complicated and
expensive, and the field was thus limited to professionals and a few
zealous and wealthy amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre
Association that helped regulate the industry, as do all such
associations, by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39129056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47325696"></a><p>
Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong.
This pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatic pictures.</span>»</span> William Talbot soon discovered a process for
-making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">negatives.</span>»</span> But because the negatives were glass, and had to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">automatic pictures.</span>”</span> William Talbot soon discovered a process for
+making <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">negatives.</span>”</span> But because the negatives were glass, and had to
be kept wet, the process still remained expensive and cumbersome. In
the 1870s, dry plates were developed, making it easier to separate the
taking of a picture from its developing. These were still plates of
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxkodakcameras"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkodakprimertheeastman"></a><p>
Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed
rolls of it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was
-marketed on the basis of its simplicity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You press the button and we
-do the rest.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39137104" class="footnote" name="idp39137104"><sup class="footnote">[26]</sup></a> As he described in <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
+marketed on the basis of its simplicity. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You press the button and we
+do the rest.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47333744" class="footnote" name="idp47333744"><sup class="footnote">[26]</sup></a> As he described in <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
The principle of the Kodak system is the separation of the work that
any person whomsoever can do in making a photograph, from the work
practice of photography the necessity for exceptional facilities or,
in fact, any special knowledge of the art. It can be employed without
preliminary study, without a darkroom and without
-chemicals.<a href="#ftn.idp39060304" class="footnote" name="idp39060304"><sup class="footnote">[27]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39142784"></a><p>
+chemicals.<a href="#ftn.idp47257040" class="footnote" name="idp47257040"><sup class="footnote">[27]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47338896"></a><p>
For $25, anyone could make pictures. The camera came preloaded
with film, and when it had been used, the camera was returned to an
Eastman factory, where the film was developed. Over time, of course,
year later, Kodak was printing more than six thousand negatives a day.
From 1888 through 1909, while industrial production was rising by 4.7
percent, photographic equipment and material sales increased by 11
-percent.<a href="#ftn.idp39144656" class="footnote" name="idp39144656"><sup class="footnote">[28]</sup></a> Eastman Kodak's sales during the same period experienced
-an average annual increase of over 17 percent.<a href="#ftn.idp39145552" class="footnote" name="idp39145552"><sup class="footnote">[29]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39146448"></a><p>
+percent.<a href="#ftn.idp47340768" class="footnote" name="idp47340768"><sup class="footnote">[28]</sup></a> Eastman Kodak's sales during the same period experienced
+an average annual increase of over 17 percent.<a href="#ftn.idp47341664" class="footnote" name="idp47341664"><sup class="footnote">[29]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47342560"></a><p>
The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not
economic. It was social. Professional photography gave individuals a
glimpse of places they would never otherwise see. Amateur photography
gave them the ability to record their own lives in a way they had
-never been able to do before. As author Brian Coe notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For the
+never been able to do before. As author Brian Coe notes, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">For the
first time the snapshot album provided the man on the street with a
permanent record of his family and its activities. … For the first
time in history there exists an authentic visual record of the
appearance and activities of the common man made without [literary]
-interpretation or bias.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39139536" class="footnote" name="idp39139536"><sup class="footnote">[30]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39149536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39150544"></a><p>
+interpretation or bias.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47336176" class="footnote" name="idp47336176"><sup class="footnote">[30]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47345648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47346656"></a><p>
In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of
expression. The pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of
expression, of course. But it took years of training before they could
be deployed by amateurs in any useful or effective way. With the
Kodak, expression was possible much sooner and more simply. The
-barrier to expression was lowered. Snobs would sneer at its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">quality</span>»</span>;
+barrier to expression was lowered. Snobs would sneer at its <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">quality</span>”</span>;
professionals would discount it as irrelevant. But watch a child study
how best to frame a picture and you get a sense of the experience of
creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic tools gave ordinary
people a way to express themselves more easily than any tools could
have before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39153024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47349136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
What was required for this technology to flourish? Obviously,
Eastman's genius was an important part. But also important was the
legal environment within which Eastman's invention grew. For early in
that could well have changed the course of photography substantially.
Courts were asked whether the photographer, amateur or professional,
required permission before he could capture and print whatever image
-he wanted. Their answer was no.<a href="#ftn.idp39156272" class="footnote" name="idp39156272"><sup class="footnote">[31]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39159472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><p>
+he wanted. Their answer was no.<a href="#ftn.idp47352384" class="footnote" name="idp47352384"><sup class="footnote">[31]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47355584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><p>
The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
-familiar. The photographer was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> something from the person or
+familiar. The photographer was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> something from the person or
building whose photograph he shot—pirating something of
value. Some even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as
Disney was not free to take the pencils that his animators used to
Mickey, so, too, should these photographers not be free to take images
that they thought valuable.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39164480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39165232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47360592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47361344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></a><p>
On the other side was an argument that should be familiar, as well.
Sure, there may be something of value being used. But citizens should
have the right to capture at least those images that stand in public view.
(Louis Brandeis, who would become a Supreme Court Justice, thought
-the rule should be different for images from private spaces.<a href="#ftn.idp39167824" class="footnote" name="idp39167824"><sup class="footnote">[32]</sup></a>) It may be that this means that the photographer
+the rule should be different for images from private spaces.<a href="#ftn.idp47363936" class="footnote" name="idp47363936"><sup class="footnote">[32]</sup></a>) It may be that this means that the photographer
gets something for nothing. Just as Disney could take inspiration from
<em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. or the Brothers Grimm, the photographer should be
free to capture an image without compensating the source.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39171776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47367888"></a><p>
Fortunately for Mr. Eastman, and for photography in general, these
early decisions went in favor of the pirates. In general, no
permission would be required before an image could be captured and
people: commercial photographers who snap pictures of famous people
for commercial purposes have more restrictions than the rest of
us. But in the ordinary case, the image can be captured without
-clearing the rights to do the capturing.<a href="#ftn.idp39173600" class="footnote" name="idp39173600"><sup class="footnote">[33]</sup></a>)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39176800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39177552"></a><p>
+clearing the rights to do the capturing.<a href="#ftn.idp47369712" class="footnote" name="idp47369712"><sup class="footnote">[33]</sup></a>)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47372912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47373664"></a><p>
We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had
the law gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the
photographer, then the photographer would have had to demonstrate
permission. Perhaps Eastman Kodak would have had to demonstrate
permission, too, before it developed the film upon which images were
captured. After all, if permission were not granted, then Eastman
-Kodak would be benefiting from the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> committed by the
+Kodak would be benefiting from the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">theft</span>”</span> committed by the
photographer. Just as Napster benefited from the copyright
infringements committed by Napster users, Kodak would be benefiting
-from the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">image-right</span>»</span> infringement of its photographers. We could
+from the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">image-right</span>”</span> infringement of its photographers. We could
imagine the law then requiring that some form of permission be
demonstrated before a company developed pictures. We could imagine a
system developing to demonstrate that permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39180320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39182528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39183536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47376432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47378640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47379648"></a><p>
But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be
that growth would have been realized. And certainly, nothing like that
growth in a democratic technology of expression would have been
realized.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39185056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39186864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39187840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39188816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39189792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47381168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47382976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47383952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47384928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47385904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>If you drive</strong></span> through San
Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses
painted over with colorful and striking images, and the logo
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> in place of the name of a school. But
-there's little that's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just</span>»</span> cerebral in the projects
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>”</span> in place of the name of a school. But
+there's little that's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">just</span>”</span> cerebral in the projects
that these busses enable. These buses are filled with technologies
that teach kids to tinker with film. Not the film of Eastman. Not even
-the film of your VCR. Rather the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film</span>»</span> of digital
+the film of your VCR. Rather the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">film</span>”</span> of digital
cameras. Just Think! is a project that enables kids to make films, as
a way to understand and critique the filmed culture that they find all
around them. Each year, these busses travel to more than thirty
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeducationinmedialiteracy"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmedialiteracy"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxexpressiontechnologiesofmedialiteracyand"></a><p>
These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is
increasingly so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has
-fallen dramatically. As one analyst puts it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Five years ago, a good
+fallen dramatically. As one analyst puts it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Five years ago, a good
real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get
-professional quality for $595.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39199840" class="footnote" name="idp39199840"><sup class="footnote">[34]</sup></a>
+professional quality for $595.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47395952" class="footnote" name="idp47395952"><sup class="footnote">[34]</sup></a>
These buses are filled with technology that would have cost hundreds
of thousands just ten years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not
just buses like this, but classrooms across the country where kids are
-learning more and more of something teachers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">media literacy.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39202528"></a><p>
+learning more and more of something teachers call <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">media literacy.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47398640"></a><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media literacy,</span>»</span> as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of Just
-Think!, puts it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is the ability … to understand, analyze, and
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Media literacy,</span>”</span> as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of Just
+Think!, puts it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">is the ability … to understand, analyze, and
deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the
way media works, the way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and
-the way people access it.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39204992"></a><p>
-This may seem like an odd way to think about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">literacy.</span>»</span> For most
+the way people access it.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47401104"></a><p>
+This may seem like an odd way to think about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">literacy.</span>”</span> For most
people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway
-and noticing split infinitives are the things that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">literate</span>»</span> people know
+and noticing split infinitives are the things that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">literate</span>”</span> people know
about.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39207264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39208016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39208768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47403376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47404128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47404880"></a><p>
Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of
television commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000
-commercials generally,<a href="#ftn.idp39210192" class="footnote" name="idp39210192"><sup class="footnote">[35]</sup></a>
-it is increasingly important to understand the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grammar</span>»</span> of media. For
+commercials generally,<a href="#ftn.idp47406304" class="footnote" name="idp47406304"><sup class="footnote">[35]</sup></a>
+it is increasingly important to understand the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">grammar</span>”</span> of media. For
just as there is a grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one
for media. And just as kids learn how to write by writing lots of
terrible prose, kids learn how to write media by constructing lots of
how difficult media is. Or more fundamentally, few of us have a sense
of how media works, how it holds an audience or leads it through a
story, how it triggers emotion or builds suspense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39213152"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47409264"></a><p>
It took filmmaking a generation before it could do these things well.
But even then, the knowledge was in the filming, not in writing about
the film. The skill came from experiencing the making of a film, not
from reading a book about it. One learns to write by writing and then
reflecting upon what one has written. One learns to write with images
by making them and then reflecting upon what one has created.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39216928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47413040"></a><p>
This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film,
as Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the
USC School of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was
-about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the placement of objects, color, … rhythm, pacing, and
-texture.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39204512" class="footnote" name="idp39204512"><sup class="footnote">[36]</sup></a>
+about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the placement of objects, color, … rhythm, pacing, and
+texture.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47400624" class="footnote" name="idp47400624"><sup class="footnote">[36]</sup></a>
But as computers open up an interactive space where a story is
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">played</span>»</span> as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">played</span>”</span> as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple
control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author
Michael Crichton had mastered the narrative of science fiction.
But when he tried to design a computer game based on one of his
works, it was a new craft he had to learn. How to lead people through
a game without their feeling they have been led was not obvious, even
-to a wildly successful author.<a href="#ftn.idp39222176" class="footnote" name="idp39222176"><sup class="footnote">[37]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39225088"></a><p>
+to a wildly successful author.<a href="#ftn.idp47418288" class="footnote" name="idp47418288"><sup class="footnote">[37]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47421200"></a><p>
This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley
-describes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">people are very surprised about how they are led through a
+describes, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">people are very surprised about how they are led through a
film. [I]t is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you
have no idea. If a filmmaker succeeds you do not know how you were
-led.</span>»</span> If you know you were led through a film, the film has failed.
+led.</span>”</span> If you know you were led through a film, the film has failed.
</p><p>
Yet the push for an expanded literacy—one that goes beyond text
to include audio and visual elements—is not about making better
can write with this language, and all the rest of us are reduced to
being read-only.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Read-only.</span>»</span> Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Read-only.</span>”</span> Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere.
Couch potatoes. Consumers. This is the world of media from the
twentieth century.
</p><p>
the tools that enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any
literacy,
-and this literacy in particular, is to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">empower people to choose the
+and this literacy in particular, is to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">empower people to choose the
appropriate language for what they need to create or
-express.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39230816" class="footnote" name="idp39230816"><sup class="footnote">[38]</sup></a> It is to enable students <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to communicate in the
-language of the twenty-first century.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39232800" class="footnote" name="idp39232800"><sup class="footnote">[39]</sup></a>
+express.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47426928" class="footnote" name="idp47426928"><sup class="footnote">[38]</sup></a> It is to enable students <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to communicate in the
+language of the twenty-first century.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47428912" class="footnote" name="idp47428912"><sup class="footnote">[39]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbarishstephanie"></a><p>
As with any language, this language comes more easily to some than to
others. It doesn't necessarily come more easily to those who excel in
failure. But Daley and Barish ran a program that gave kids an
opportunity to use film to express meaning about something the
students know something about—gun violence.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39235184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47431296"></a><p>
The class was held on Friday afternoons, and it created a relatively
new problem for the school. While the challenge in most classes was
getting the kids to come, the challenge in this class was keeping them
-away. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kids were showing up at 6 A.M. and leaving at 5 at night,</span>»</span>
+away. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kids were showing up at 6 A.M. and leaving at 5 at night,</span>”</span>
said Barish. They were working harder than in any other class to do
what education should be about—learning how to express themselves.
</p><p>
-Using whatever <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free web stuff they could find,</span>»</span> and relatively simple
-tools to enable the kids to mix <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">image, sound, and text,</span>»</span> Barish said
+Using whatever <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free web stuff they could find,</span>”</span> and relatively simple
+tools to enable the kids to mix <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">image, sound, and text,</span>”</span> Barish said
this class produced a series of projects that showed something about
gun violence that few would otherwise understand. This was an issue
-close to the lives of these students. The project <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gave them a tool
+close to the lives of these students. The project <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gave them a tool
and empowered them to be able to both understand it and talk about
-it,</span>»</span> Barish explained. That tool succeeded in creating
+it,</span>”</span> Barish explained. That tool succeeded in creating
expression—far more successfully and powerfully than could have
-been created using only text. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you had said to these students, <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">you
+been created using only text. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If you had said to these students, <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">you
have to do it in text,</span>’</span> they would've just thrown their hands up and
-gone and done something else,</span>»</span> Barish described, in part, no doubt,
+gone and done something else,</span>”</span> Barish described, in part, no doubt,
because expressing themselves in text is not something these students
can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which
<span class="emphasis"><em>these</em></span> ideas can be expressed well. The power of
this message depended upon its connection to this form of expression.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39242224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47438336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But isn't education about teaching kids to write?</span>»</span> I asked. In part,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But isn't education about teaching kids to write?</span>”</span> I asked. In part,
of course, it is. But why are we teaching kids to write? Education,
-Daley explained, is about giving students a way of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">constructing
-meaning.</span>»</span> To say that that means just writing is like saying teaching
+Daley explained, is about giving students a way of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">constructing
+meaning.</span>”</span> To say that that means just writing is like saying teaching
writing is only about teaching kids how to spell. Text is one
part—and increasingly, not the most powerful part—of
constructing meaning. As Daley explained in the most moving part of
video, he can play a video game, he can do graffiti all over your
walls, he can take your car apart, and he can do all sorts of other
things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny comes to school and
-you say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you can do matters.</span>»</span>
+you say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you can do matters.</span>”</span>
Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss you or he [can]
dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to dismiss
-you. [But i]nstead, if you say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, with all these things that you
+you. [But i]nstead, if you say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, with all these things that you
can do, let's talk about this issue. Play for me music that you think
reflects that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw
-for me something that reflects that.</span>»</span> Not by giving a kid a video
-camera and … saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Let's go have fun with the video camera and
-make a little movie.</span>»</span> But instead, really help you take these elements
+for me something that reflects that.</span>”</span> Not by giving a kid a video
+camera and … saying, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Let's go have fun with the video camera and
+make a little movie.</span>”</span> But instead, really help you take these elements
that you understand, that are your language, and construct meaning
about the topic.…
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39248688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47444800"></a><p>
That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of
course, is eventually, as it has happened in all these classes, they
-bump up against the fact, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I need to explain this and I really need
-to write something.</span>»</span> And as one of the teachers told Stephanie,
+bump up against the fact, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I need to explain this and I really need
+to write something.</span>”</span> And as one of the teachers told Stephanie,
they would rewrite a paragraph 5, 6, 7, 8 times, till they got it right.
</p><p>
Because they needed to. There was a reason for doing it. They
didn't speak very well. But they had come to understand that they
had a lot of power with this language.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39251984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39252960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39253936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39254912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39257120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47448096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47449072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47450048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47451024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47453232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>When two planes</strong></span> crashed into the
World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a
Pennsylvania field, all media around the world shifted to this
</p><p>
These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music
scored for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across
-the screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span>
+the screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">balance,</span>”</span>
and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have
-increasingly come to expect it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">news as entertainment,</span>»</span> even if the
+increasingly come to expect it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">news as entertainment,</span>”</span> even if the
entertainment is tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39262160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39262912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39263664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39264416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson"></a><p>
-But in addition to this produced news about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedy of September
-11,</span>»</span> those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47458832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47459584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47460336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47461088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson"></a><p>
+But in addition to this produced news about the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tragedy of September
+11,</span>”</span> those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different
production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same
events. Yet these Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some
people constructed photo pages that captured images from around the
the term in his book <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, around a news event that had
captured the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there
was also the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39268528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47465200"></a><p>
I don't mean simply to praise the Internet—though I do think the
people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean
instead to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a
Kodak, the Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a
movie
-by a student on the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> bus, the visual images could be mixed
+by a student on the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>”</span> bus, the visual images could be mixed
with sound or text.
</p><p>
But unlike any technology for simply capturing images, the Internet
and obviously not just that events are commented upon critically, but
that this mix of captured images, sound, and commentary can be widely
spread practically instantaneously.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39271152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47467824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
September 11 was not an aberration. It was a beginning. Around the
same time, a form of communication that has grown dramatically was
just beginning to come into public consciousness: the Web-log, or
such as in Japan, it functions very much like a diary. In those
cultures, it records private facts in a public way—it's a kind
of electronic <em class="citetitle">Jerry Springer</em>, available anywhere in the world.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39277888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39278864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47474560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47475536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></a><p>
But in the United States, blogs have taken on a very different
character. There are some who use the space simply to talk about
their private life. But there are many who use the space to engage in
in those elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally
professionalized and routinized. Most of us think this is democracy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39287680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39288656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39289632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39290608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39292848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47484352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47485328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47486304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47487280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47489520"></a><p>
But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy
means rule by the people, but rule means something more than mere
elections. In our tradition, it also means control through reasoned
discourse. This was the idea that captured the imagination of Alexis
de Tocqueville, the nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the
-most important account of early <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Democracy in America.</span>»</span> It wasn't
+most important account of early <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Democracy in America.</span>”</span> It wasn't
popular elections that fascinated him—it was the jury, an
institution that gave ordinary people the right to choose life or
death for other citizens. And most fascinating for him was that the
jury didn't just vote about the outcome they would impose. They
-deliberated. Members argued about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> result; they tried to
-persuade each other of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> result, and in criminal cases at
+deliberated. Members argued about the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span> result; they tried to
+persuade each other of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span> result, and in criminal cases at
least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to
-come to an end.<a href="#ftn.idp39295840" class="footnote" name="idp39295840"><sup class="footnote">[40]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39297120"></a><p>
+come to an end.<a href="#ftn.idp47492512" class="footnote" name="idp47492512"><sup class="footnote">[40]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47493792"></a><p>
Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its
place, there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some
-are pushing to create just such an institution.<a href="#ftn.idp39298560" class="footnote" name="idp39298560"><sup class="footnote">[41]</sup></a>
+are pushing to create just such an institution.<a href="#ftn.idp47495232" class="footnote" name="idp47495232"><sup class="footnote">[41]</sup></a>
And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or
-place for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">democratic deliberation</span>»</span> to occur.
+place for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">democratic deliberation</span>”</span> to occur.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoliticaldiscourse"></a><p>
More bizarrely, there is generally not even permission for it to
occur. We, the most powerful democracy in the world, have developed a
strong norm against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about
politics with people you agree with. But it is rude to argue about
politics with people you disagree with. Political discourse becomes
-isolated, and isolated discourse becomes more extreme.<a href="#ftn.idp39302672" class="footnote" name="idp39302672"><sup class="footnote">[42]</sup></a> We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very
+isolated, and isolated discourse becomes more extreme.<a href="#ftn.idp47499344" class="footnote" name="idp47499344"><sup class="footnote">[42]</sup></a> We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very
little beyond what our friends say.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39305296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39308768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39309744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39310720"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47501968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47505440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47506416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47507392"></a><p>
Enter the blog. The blog's very architecture solves one part of this
problem. People post when they want to post, and people read when they
want to read. The most difficult time is synchronous time.
the left. Some of the most popular sites are conservative or libertarian,
but there are many of all political stripes. And even blogs that are not
political cover political issues when the occasion merits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39313600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47510272"></a><p>
The significance of these blogs is tiny now, though not so tiny. The
name Howard Dean may well have faded from the 2004 presidential race
but for blogs. Yet even if the number of readers is small, the reading
is having an effect.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39314976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39315728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47511648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47512400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></a><p>
One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misspoke</span>»</span> at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">misspoke</span>”</span> at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising
Thurmond's segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that this
story would disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight
hours. It did. But he didn't calculate its life cycle in blog
space. The bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and
-more instances of the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misspeaking</span>»</span> emerged. Finally, the story
+more instances of the same <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">misspeaking</span>”</span> emerged. Finally, the story
broke back into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to
-resign as senate majority leader.<a href="#ftn.idp39321152" class="footnote" name="idp39321152"><sup class="footnote">[43]</sup></a>
+resign as senate majority leader.<a href="#ftn.idp47517824" class="footnote" name="idp47517824"><sup class="footnote">[43]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediacommercialimperativesof"></a><p>
This different cycle is possible because the same commercial pressures
don't exist with blogs as with other ventures. Television and
newspapers are commercial entities. They must work to keep attention.
If they lose readers, they lose revenue. Like sharks, they must move
on.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39324976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39325952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47521648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47522624"></a><p>
But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they
can focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a
particularly interesting story, more and more people link to that
rises in the ranks of stories. People read what is popular; what is
popular has been selected by a very democratic process of
peer-generated rankings.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39327776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47524448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle
from the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this
movement and a software author for many decades, told me, another
-difference is the absence of a financial <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">conflict of interest.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think you
-have to take the conflict of interest</span>»</span> out of journalism, Winer told me.
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the
+difference is the absence of a financial <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">conflict of interest.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I think you
+have to take the conflict of interest</span>”</span> out of journalism, Winer told me.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the
conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of
-get it out of the way.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39333472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39334224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39335232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39335984"></a><p>
+get it out of the way.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47530144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47530896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47531904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47532656"></a><p>
These conflicts become more important as media becomes more
concentrated (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more
from the public than an unconcentrated media can—as CNN admitted
it did after the Iraq war because it was afraid of the consequences to
-its own employees.<a href="#ftn.idp39294624" class="footnote" name="idp39294624"><sup class="footnote">[44]</sup></a>
+its own employees.<a href="#ftn.idp47491296" class="footnote" name="idp47491296"><sup class="footnote">[44]</sup></a>
It also needs to sustain a more coherent account. (In the middle of
the Iraq war, I read a post on the Internet from someone who was at
that time listening to a satellite uplink with a reporter in Iraq. The
New York headquarters was telling the reporter over and over that her
account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer a more
optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
-told her that <span class="emphasis"><em>they</em></span> were writing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the story.</span>»</span>)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39339712"></a><p>
+told her that <span class="emphasis"><em>they</em></span> were writing <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the story.</span>”</span>)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47536384"></a><p>
Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the
-debate—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amateur</span>»</span> not in the sense of inexperienced,
+debate—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">amateur</span>”</span> not in the sense of inexperienced,
but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning not paid by anyone to
give their reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a
story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when hundreds
from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to
-retell what they had seen.<a href="#ftn.idp39341680" class="footnote" name="idp39341680"><sup class="footnote">[45]</sup></a>
+retell what they had seen.<a href="#ftn.idp47538352" class="footnote" name="idp47538352"><sup class="footnote">[45]</sup></a>
And it drives readers to read across the range of accounts and
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulate,</span>»</span> as Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is
-out of it</span>»</span>—with all the benefits, and costs, that might entail.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">triangulate,</span>”</span> as Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is
+out of it</span>”</span>—with all the benefits, and costs, that might entail.
</p><p>
Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected
-with blogs. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It's going to become an essential skill,</span>»</span> Winer predicts,
+with blogs. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">It's going to become an essential skill,</span>”</span> Winer predicts,
for public figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's
-not clear that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalism</span>»</span> is happy about this—some journalists
-have been told to curtail their blogging.<a href="#ftn.idp39345200" class="footnote" name="idp39345200"><sup class="footnote">[46]</sup></a>
-But it is clear that we are still in transition. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A
+not clear that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">journalism</span>”</span> is happy about this—some journalists
+have been told to curtail their blogging.<a href="#ftn.idp47541872" class="footnote" name="idp47541872"><sup class="footnote">[46]</sup></a>
+But it is clear that we are still in transition. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">A
-lot of what we are doing now is warm-up exercises,</span>»</span> Winer told me.
+lot of what we are doing now is warm-up exercises,</span>”</span> Winer told me.
There is a lot that must mature before this space has its mature effect.
And as the inclusion of content in this space is the least infringing use
-of the Internet (meaning infringing on copyright), Winer said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we will
-be the last thing that gets shut down.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39354128"></a><p>
-This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">you
-don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper.</span>»</span>
+of the Internet (meaning infringing on copyright), Winer said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we will
+be the last thing that gets shut down.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47550800"></a><p>
+This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">you
+don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper.</span>”</span>
That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As
more and more citizens express what they think, and defend it in
writing, that will change the way people understand public issues. It
Today there are probably a couple of million blogs where such writing
happens. When there are ten million, there will be something
extraordinary to report.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39356752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39357728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39358704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39359680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39360656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39361632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39362608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47553424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47554400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47555376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47556352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47557328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47558304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47559280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> is the chief
scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work, as his Web site
-describes it, is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">human learning and … the creation of
-knowledge ecologies for creating … innovation.</span>»</span>
+describes it, is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">human learning and … the creation of
+knowledge ecologies for creating … innovation.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
Brown thus looks at these technologies of digital creativity a bit
differently from the perspectives I've sketched so far. I'm sure he
democracy. But his real excitement comes from how these technologies
affect learning.
</p><p>
-As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">a lot of us grew up,</span>»</span>
-he explains, that tinkering was done <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on motorcycle engines, lawnmower
-engines, automobiles, radios, and so on.</span>»</span> But digital technologies
+As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">a lot of us grew up,</span>”</span>
+he explains, that tinkering was done <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">on motorcycle engines, lawnmower
+engines, automobiles, radios, and so on.</span>”</span> But digital technologies
enable a different kind of tinkering—with abstract ideas though
in concrete form. The kids at Just Think! not only think about how a
commercial portrays a politician; using digital technology, they can
take the commercial apart and manipulate it, tinker with it to see how
it does what it does. Digital technologies launch a kind of bricolage,
-or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free collage,</span>»</span> as Brown calls it. Many get to add to or transform
+or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free collage,</span>”</span> as Brown calls it. Many get to add to or transform
the tinkering of many others.
</p><p>
The best large-scale example of this kind of tinkering so far is free
FS/OSS program run. And anyone eager to learn how a particular bit of
FS/OSS technology works can tinker with the code.
</p><p>
-This opportunity creates a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">completely new kind of learning platform,</span>»</span>
-as Brown describes. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">As soon as you start doing that, you …
+This opportunity creates a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">completely new kind of learning platform,</span>”</span>
+as Brown describes. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">As soon as you start doing that, you …
unleash a free collage on the community, so that other people can
start looking at your code, tinkering with it, trying it out, seeing
-if they can improve it.</span>»</span> Each effort is a kind of
-apprenticeship. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Open source becomes a major apprenticeship platform.</span>»</span>
+if they can improve it.</span>”</span> Each effort is a kind of
+apprenticeship. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Open source becomes a major apprenticeship platform.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-In this process, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the concrete things you tinker with are abstract.
-They are code.</span>»</span> Kids are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shifting to the ability to tinker in the
+In this process, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the concrete things you tinker with are abstract.
+They are code.</span>”</span> Kids are <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">shifting to the ability to tinker in the
abstract, and this tinkering is no longer an isolated activity that
you're doing in your garage. You are tinkering with a community
platform. … You are tinkering with other people's stuff. The more
-you tinker the more you improve.</span>»</span> The more you improve, the more you
+you tinker the more you improve.</span>”</span> The more you improve, the more you
learn.
</p><p>
This same thing happens with content, too. And it happens in the same
collaborative way when that content is part of the Web. As Brown puts
-it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Web [is] the first medium that truly honors multiple forms of
-intelligence.</span>»</span> Earlier technologies, such as the typewriter or word
+it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Web [is] the first medium that truly honors multiple forms of
+intelligence.</span>”</span> Earlier technologies, such as the typewriter or word
processors, helped amplify text. But the Web amplifies much more than
-text. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Web … says if you are musical, if you are artistic, if
+text. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Web … says if you are musical, if you are artistic, if
you are visual, if you are interested in film … [then] there is a
lot you can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor
-these multiple forms of intelligence.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39376576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39377552"></a><p>
+these multiple forms of intelligence.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47573248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47574224"></a><p>
Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and
Just Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well
</p><p>
These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars.
Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter
-<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>)
-has developed a powerful argument in favor of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right to
-tinker</span>»</span> as it applies to computer science and to knowledge in
-general.<a href="#ftn.idp39381712" class="footnote" name="idp39381712"><sup class="footnote">[47]</sup></a>
+<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a>)
+has developed a powerful argument in favor of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right to
+tinker</span>”</span> as it applies to computer science and to knowledge in
+general.<a href="#ftn.idp47578384" class="footnote" name="idp47578384"><sup class="footnote">[47]</sup></a>
But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more fundamental. It is
about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because of the law.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is where education in the twenty-first century is going,</span>»</span> Brown
-explains. We need to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">understand how kids who grow up digital think
-and want to learn.</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This is where education in the twenty-first century is going,</span>”</span> Brown
+explains. We need to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">understand how kids who grow up digital think
+and want to learn.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Yet,</span>»</span> as Brown continued, and as the balance of this book will
-evince, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we are building a legal system that completely suppresses the
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Yet,</span>”</span> as Brown continued, and as the balance of this book will
+evince, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we are building a legal system that completely suppresses the
natural tendencies of today's digital kids. … We're building an
architecture that unleashes 60 percent of the brain [and] a legal
-system that closes down that part of the brain.</span>»</span>
+system that closes down that part of the brain.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
We're building a technology that takes the magic of Kodak, mixes
moving images and sound, and adds a space for commentary and an
opportunity to spread that creativity everywhere. But we're building
the law to close down that technology.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39387136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39387888"></a><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No way to run a culture,</span>»</span> as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47583808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47584560"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No way to run a culture,</span>”</span> as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in
chapter <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Chapter 9. Chapter Nine: Collectors">9</a>,
quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp39137104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39137104" class="para"><sup class="para">[26] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp47333744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47333744" class="para"><sup class="para">[26] </sup></a>
Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39060304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39060304" class="para"><sup class="para">[27] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47257040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47257040" class="para"><sup class="para">[27] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39141264"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47337376"></a>
Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York: Taplinger Publishing,
1977), 53.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39144656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39144656" class="para"><sup class="para">[28] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47340768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47340768" class="para"><sup class="para">[28] </sup></a>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39145552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39145552" class="para"><sup class="para">[29] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47341664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47341664" class="para"><sup class="para">[29] </sup></a>
Based on a chart in Jenkins, p. 178.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39139536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39139536" class="para"><sup class="para">[30] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47336176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47336176" class="para"><sup class="para">[30] </sup></a>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39156272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39156272" class="para"><sup class="para">[31] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47352384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47352384" class="para"><sup class="para">[31] </sup></a>
For illustrative cases, see, for example, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
<em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>, 123090 S.W. 364, 366
(Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.
Dist. Ct. 1894).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39167824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39167824" class="para"><sup class="para">[32] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47363936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47363936" class="para"><sup class="para">[32] </sup></a>
-Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>»</span>
+Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39169360"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39170112"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39173600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39173600" class="para"><sup class="para">[33] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47365472"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47366224"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47369712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47369712" class="para"><sup class="para">[33] </sup></a>
-See Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary
-Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">California Law
+See Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary
+Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Privacy,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">California Law
Review</em> 48 (1960) 398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Samsung Electronics America,
Inc</em>., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951
(1993).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39199840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39199840" class="para"><sup class="para">[34] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47395952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47395952" class="para"><sup class="para">[34] </sup></a>
-H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
-Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
+H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
+Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>”</span>
cadalyst, February 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39210192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39210192" class="para"><sup class="para">[35] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47406304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47406304" class="para"><sup class="para">[35] </sup></a>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em> (Hillsdale, N.J.:
-Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on Family and TV
-Study,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May 1997, B6.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39204512" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39204512" class="para"><sup class="para">[36] </sup></a>
+Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Findings on Family and TV
+Study,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May 1997, B6.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47400624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47400624" class="para"><sup class="para">[36] </sup></a>
Interview with Elizabeth Daley and Stephanie Barish, 13 December
2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39219632"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39220384"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39222176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39222176" class="para"><sup class="para">[37] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47415744"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47416496"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47418288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47418288" class="para"><sup class="para">[37] </sup></a>
-See Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>»</span> E!online, 4
+See Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>”</span> E!online, 4
November 2000, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Timeline,</span>»</span> 22 November 2000,
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>; <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Timeline,</span>”</span> 22 November 2000,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39230816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39230816" class="para"><sup class="para">[38] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47426928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47426928" class="para"><sup class="para">[38] </sup></a>
Interview with Daley and Barish.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39231584"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39232800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39232800" class="para"><sup class="para">[39] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47427696"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47428912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47428912" class="para"><sup class="para">[39] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39295840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39295840" class="para"><sup class="para">[40] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47492512" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47492512" class="para"><sup class="para">[40] </sup></a>
See, for example, Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in America</em>,
bk. 1, trans. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books, 2000), ch. 16.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39298560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39298560" class="para"><sup class="para">[41] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47495232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47495232" class="para"><sup class="para">[41] </sup></a>
-Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of
+Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of
Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39302672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39302672" class="para"><sup class="para">[42] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47499344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47499344" class="para"><sup class="para">[42] </sup></a>
Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001),
65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39321152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39321152" class="para"><sup class="para">[43] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47517824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47517824" class="para"><sup class="para">[43] </sup></a>
-Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
-Pot,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 16 January 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39294624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39294624" class="para"><sup class="para">[44] </sup></a>
+Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
+Pot,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 16 January 2003, G5.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47491296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47491296" class="para"><sup class="para">[44] </sup></a>
Telephone interview with David Winer, 16 April 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39341680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39341680" class="para"><sup class="para">[45] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47538352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47538352" class="para"><sup class="para">[45] </sup></a>
-John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
-Information Online,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci
-D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall,</span>»</span>
+John Schwartz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
+Information Online,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci
+D. Kramer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall,</span>”</span>
Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39345200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39345200" class="para"><sup class="para">[46] </sup></a>
-
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39347632"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39348384"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39349136"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39349888"></a>
-See Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
-York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not all news organizations have
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47541872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47541872" class="para"><sup class="para">[46] </sup></a>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47544304"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47545056"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47545808"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47546560"></a>
+See Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New
+York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Not all news organizations have
been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin Sites, a CNN
correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of the
war on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses'
request. Last year Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em> reporter, was
fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a pseudonym,
-that dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.</span>»</span>)
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39381712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39381712" class="para"><sup class="para">[47] </sup></a>
+that dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.</span>”</span>)
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47578384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47578384" class="para"><sup class="para">[47] </sup></a>
-See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
-Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Communications
+See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Technological Access
+Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Communications
of the Association for Computer Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. Chapter Three: Catalogs</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39391872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39392624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. Chapter Three: Catalogs</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47588544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47589296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In the fall</strong></span> of 2002, Jesse Jordan
of Oceanside, New York, enrolled as a freshman at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, New York. His major at RPI was
brought the Internet much closer to all of us by fantastically
improving the quality of search on the network. Specialty search
-engines can do this even better. The idea of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranet</span>»</span> search
+engines can do this even better. The idea of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intranet</span>”</span> search
engines, search engines that search within the network of a particular
institution, is to provide users of that institution with better
access to material from that institution. Businesses do this all the
content. Jesse's search engine was built to take advantage of this
technology. It used Microsoft's network file system to build an index
of all the files available within the RPI network.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39409792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47606464"></a><p>
Jesse's wasn't the first search engine built for the RPI network.
Indeed, his engine was a simple modification of engines that others
had built. His single most important improvement over those engines
modified the system a bit to fix that problem, by adding a button that
a user could click to see if the machine holding the file was still
on-line.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39411792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47608464"></a><p>
Jesse's engine went on-line in late October. Over the following six
months, he continued to tweak it to improve its functionality. By
March, the system was functioning quite well. Jesse had more than one
million files in his directory, including every type of content that might
be on users' computers.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39413472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47610144"></a><p>
Thus the index his search engine produced included pictures, which
students could use to put on their own Web sites; copies of notes or
research; copies of information pamphlets; movie clips that students
users of the RPI network made available in a public folder of their
computer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39415504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39416256"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47612176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47612928"></a><p>
But the index also included music files. In fact, one quarter of the
files that Jesse's search engine listed were music files. But that
means, of course, that three quarters were not, and—so that this
this experiment. He was a kid tinkering with technology in an
environment where tinkering with technology was precisely what he was
supposed to do.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39424960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47621632"></a><p>
On April 3, 2003, Jesse was contacted by the dean of students at
RPI. The dean informed Jesse that the Recording Industry Association
of America, the RIAA, would be filing a lawsuit against him and three
the suit. As he read these papers and watched the news reports about
them, he was increasingly astonished.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It was absurd,</span>»</span> he told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I don't think I did anything
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">It was absurd,</span>”</span> he told me. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I don't think I did anything
wrong. … I don't think there's anything wrong with the search
engine that I ran or … what I had done to it. I mean, I hadn't
modified it in any way that promoted or enhanced the work of
pirates. I just modified the search engine in a way that would make it
-easier to use</span>»</span>—again, a <span class="emphasis"><em>search engine</em></span>,
+easier to use</span>”</span>—again, a <span class="emphasis"><em>search engine</em></span>,
which Jesse had not himself built, using the Windows filesharing
system, which Jesse had not himself built, to enable members of the
RPI community to get access to content, which Jesse had not himself
created or posted, and the vast majority of which had nothing to do
with music.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39429104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39430080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39431088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39433744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47625776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47626752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47627760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47630416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></a><p>
But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a
-network and had therefore <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully</span>»</span> violated copyright laws. They
+network and had therefore <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">willfully</span>”</span> violated copyright laws. They
demanded that he pay them the damages for his wrong. For cases of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willful infringement,</span>»</span> the Copyright Act specifies something lawyers
-call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">statutory damages.</span>»</span> These damages permit a copyright owner to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">willful infringement,</span>”</span> the Copyright Act specifies something lawyers
+call <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">statutory damages.</span>”</span> These damages permit a copyright owner to
claim $150,000 per infringement. As the RIAA alleged more than one
hundred specific copyright infringements, they therefore demanded that
Jesse pay them at least $15,000,000.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39438288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39439040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47634960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47635712"></a><p>
Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one other
student at RPI, one at Michigan Technical University, and one at
Princeton. Their situations were similar to Jesse's. Though each case
was different in detail, the bottom line in each was exactly the same:
-huge demands for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">damages</span>»</span> that the RIAA claimed it was entitled to.
+huge demands for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">damages</span>”</span> that the RIAA claimed it was entitled to.
If you added up the claims, these four lawsuits were asking courts in
the United States to award the plaintiffs close to $100
<span class="emphasis"><em>billion</em></span>—six times the
<span class="emphasis"><em>total</em></span> profit of the film industry in
-2001.<a href="#ftn.idp39441696" class="footnote" name="idp39441696"><sup class="footnote">[48]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39443472"></a><p>
+2001.<a href="#ftn.idp47638368" class="footnote" name="idp47638368"><sup class="footnote">[48]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47640144"></a><p>
Jesse called his parents. They were supportive but a bit frightened.
An uncle was a lawyer. He began negotiations with the RIAA. They
demanded to know how much money Jesse had. Jesse had saved
$12,000 from summer jobs and other employment. They demanded
$12,000 to dismiss the case.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39445136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47641808"></a><p>
The RIAA wanted Jesse to admit to doing something wrong. He
refused. They wanted him to agree to an injunction that would
essentially make it impossible for him to work in many fields of
technology for the rest of his life. He refused. They made him
understand that this process of being sued was not going to be
pleasant. (As Jesse's father recounted to me, the chief lawyer on the
-case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You don't want to pay another
-visit to a dentist like me.</span>»</span>) And throughout, the RIAA insisted it
+case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You don't want to pay another
+visit to a dentist like me.</span>”</span>) And throughout, the RIAA insisted it
would not settle the case until it took every penny Jesse had saved.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39447296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47643968"></a><p>
Jesse's family was outraged at these claims. They wanted to fight.
But Jesse's uncle worked to educate the family about the nature of the
American legal system. Jesse could fight the RIAA. He might even
</p><p>
So Jesse faced a mafia-like choice: $250,000 and a chance at winning,
or $12,000 and a settlement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39449680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39450688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39451696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47646352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47647360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47648368"></a><p>
The recording industry insists this is a matter of law and morality.
Let's put the law aside for a moment and think about the morality.
Where is the morality in a lawsuit like this? What is the virtue in
scapegoatism? The RIAA is an extraordinarily powerful lobby. The
president of the RIAA is reported to make more than $1 million a year.
Artists, on the other hand, are not well paid. The average recording
-artist makes $45,900.<a href="#ftn.idp39453408" class="footnote" name="idp39453408"><sup class="footnote">[49]</sup></a>
+artist makes $45,900.<a href="#ftn.idp47650080" class="footnote" name="idp47650080"><sup class="footnote">[49]</sup></a>
There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect
and direct policy. So where is the morality in taking money from a
-student for running a search engine?<a href="#ftn.idp39454896" class="footnote" name="idp39454896"><sup class="footnote">[50]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39456560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39457776"></a><p>
+student for running a search engine?<a href="#ftn.idp47651648" class="footnote" name="idp47651648"><sup class="footnote">[50]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47653312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47654448"></a><p>
On June 23, Jesse wired his savings to the lawyer working for the
RIAA. The case against him was then dismissed. And with this, this
kid who had tinkered a computer into a $15 million lawsuit became an
absurd what the RIAA has done.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Jesse's parents betray a certain pride in their reluctant activist. As
-his father told me, Jesse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">considers himself very conservative, and so do
+his father told me, Jesse <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">considers himself very conservative, and so do
I. … He's not a tree hugger. … I think it's bizarre that they would
pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the
-wrong message. And he wants to correct the record.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp39461680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39462656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39463632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39464608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39465744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39466720"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp39441696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39441696" class="para"><sup class="para">[48] </sup></a>
+wrong message. And he wants to correct the record.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp47658352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47659328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47660304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47661280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47662416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47663392"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp47638368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47638368" class="para"><sup class="para">[48] </sup></a>
-Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks:
-Suit Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media Group LCC</em> 6
+Tim Goral, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks:
+Suit Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media Group LCC</em> 6
(2003): 5, available at 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39453408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39453408" class="para"><sup class="para">[49] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47650080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47650080" class="para"><sup class="para">[49] </sup></a>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
(27–2042—Musicians and Singers). See also National Endowment for
the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39454896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39454896" class="para"><sup class="para">[50] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47651648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47651648" class="para"><sup class="para">[50] </sup></a>
-Douglas Lichtman makes a related point in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and Punishment,</span>»</span>
+Douglas Lichtman makes a related point in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">KaZaA and Punishment,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10 September 2003, A24.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. Chapter Four: <span class="quote">
«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39471136"></a><p>
-<span class="strong"><strong>If <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> means</strong></span>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. Chapter Four: <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">Pirates</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47667808"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>If <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> means</strong></span>
using the creative property of others without their
-permission—if <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span> is
+permission—if <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>”</span> is
true—then the history of the content industry is a history of
-piracy. Every important sector of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">big media</span>»</span>
+piracy. Every important sector of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">big media</span>”</span>
today—film, records, radio, and cable TV—was born of a
kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last
generation's pirates join this generation's country club—until
now.
-</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39475504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhollywoodfilmindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsonfilmtechnology"></a><p>
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<a href="#ftn.idp39479568" class="footnote" name="idp39479568"><sup class="footnote">[51]</sup></a>
+</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47672176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhollywoodfilmindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsonfilmtechnology"></a><p>
+The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<a href="#ftn.idp47676240" class="footnote" name="idp47676240"><sup class="footnote">[51]</sup></a>
Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast to California in
the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that patents
granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls were
-exercised through a monopoly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trust,</span>»</span> the Motion Pictures Patents
+exercised through a monopoly <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">trust,</span>”</span> the Motion Pictures Patents
Company, and were based on Thomas Edison's creative
property—patents. Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights
this creative property
summer of 1909 the independent movement was in full-swing,
with producers and theater owners using illegal equipment and
imported film stock to create their own underground market.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39484864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39485504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39486256"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47681536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47682176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47682928"></a><p>
With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement
by forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company
unlicensed films, and effectively monopolized distribution with the
acquisition of all U.S. film exchanges, except for the one owned by
the independent William Fox who defied the Trust even after his
-license was revoked.<a href="#ftn.idp39487904" class="footnote" name="idp39487904"><sup class="footnote">[52]</sup></a>
+license was revoked.<a href="#ftn.idp47685216" class="footnote" name="idp47685216"><sup class="footnote">[52]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independents,</span>»</span> were
+The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">independents,</span>”</span> were
companies like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were
-vigorously resisted. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery
+vigorously resisted. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery
stolen, and <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">accidents</span>’</span> resulting in loss of negatives,
equipment, buildings and sometimes life and limb frequently
-occurred.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39493680" class="footnote" name="idp39493680"><sup class="footnote">[53]</sup></a>
+occurred.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47690992" class="footnote" name="idp47690992"><sup class="footnote">[53]</sup></a>
That led the independents to flee the East
Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that
filmmakers there could pirate his inventions without fear of the
law. And the leaders of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently,
did just that.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39496240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47693552"></a><p>
Of course, California grew quickly, and the effective enforcement
of federal law eventually spread west. But because patents grant the
-patent holder a truly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> monopoly (just seventeen years at that
+patent holder a truly <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited</span>”</span> monopoly (just seventeen years at that
time), by the time enough federal marshals appeared, the patents had
expired. A new industry had been born, in part from the piracy of
Edison's creative property.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39498592"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Recorded Music</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47695904"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Recorded Music</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings"></a><p>
The record industry was born of another kind of piracy, though to see
how requires a bit of detail about the way the law regulates music.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39503840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47701152"></a><p>
At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines
for reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player
piano), the law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of
their music and the exclusive right to control public performances of
their music. In other words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's
-1899 hit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>»</span> the law said I would have to pay for the right
+1899 hit <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>”</span> the law said I would have to pay for the right
to get a copy of the musical score, and I would also have to pay for the
right to perform it publicly.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39505888"></a><p>
-But what if I wanted to record <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>»</span> using Edison's phonograph
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47703200"></a><p>
+But what if I wanted to record <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>”</span> using Edison's phonograph
or Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear
enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I
performed in making this recording. And it was clear enough that I
would have to pay for any public performance of the work I was
recording. But it wasn't totally clear that I would have to pay for a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public performance</span>»</span> if I recorded the song in my own house (even
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public performance</span>”</span> if I recorded the song in my own house (even
today, you don't owe the Beatles anything if you sing their songs in
the shower), or if I recorded the song from memory (copies in your
brain are not—yet— regulated by copyright law). So if I
then made copies of those recordings. Because of this gap in the law,
then, I could effectively pirate someone else's song without paying
its composer anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39508048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkittredgealfred"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmusicpublishing"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47705360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkittredgealfred"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmusicpublishing"></a><p>
The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about
this capacity to pirate. As South Dakota senator Alfred Kittredge
put it,
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39512928"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47710240"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an
opera. A publisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and
copyrights it. Along come the phonographic companies and companies who
cut music rolls and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the
composer and publisher without any regard for [their]
-rights.<a href="#ftn.idp39514672" class="footnote" name="idp39514672"><sup class="footnote">[54]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39517216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39518192"></a><p>
+rights.<a href="#ftn.idp47711984" class="footnote" name="idp47711984"><sup class="footnote">[54]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47714528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47715504"></a><p>
The innovators who developed the technology to record other
-people's works were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and
-genius of American composers,</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39519648" class="footnote" name="idp39519648"><sup class="footnote">[55]</sup></a>
-and the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>»</span>
-was thereby <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">at the complete mercy of this one pirate.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39521216" class="footnote" name="idp39521216"><sup class="footnote">[56]</sup></a>
+people's works were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and
+genius of American composers,</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47716960" class="footnote" name="idp47716960"><sup class="footnote">[55]</sup></a>
+and the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>”</span>
+was thereby <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">at the complete mercy of this one pirate.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47718528" class="footnote" name="idp47718528"><sup class="footnote">[56]</sup></a>
As John Philip
-Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When they make money
-out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39522560" class="footnote" name="idp39522560"><sup class="footnote">[57]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39523584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39524560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39525312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39526064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
+Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">When they make money
+out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47719872" class="footnote" name="idp47719872"><sup class="footnote">[57]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47720896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47721872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47722624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47723376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too,
do the arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the
-player piano argued that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the
+player piano argued that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the
introduction of automatic music players has not deprived any composer
-of anything he had before their introduction.</span>»</span> Rather, the machines
-increased the sales of sheet music.<a href="#ftn.idp39533840" class="footnote" name="idp39533840"><sup class="footnote">[58]</sup></a> In any case, the innovators argued, the job of
-Congress was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to consider first the interest of [the public], whom
-they represent, and whose servants they are.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All talk about
-<span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">theft,</span>’</span></span>»</span> the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company
-wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas
+of anything he had before their introduction.</span>”</span> Rather, the machines
+increased the sales of sheet music.<a href="#ftn.idp47731152" class="footnote" name="idp47731152"><sup class="footnote">[58]</sup></a> In any case, the innovators argued, the job of
+Congress was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to consider first the interest of [the public], whom
+they represent, and whose servants they are.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All talk about
+<span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">theft,</span>’</span></span>”</span> the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company
+wrote, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas
musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by
-statute.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39536480" class="footnote" name="idp39536480"><sup class="footnote">[59]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39537568"></a><p>
+statute.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47733792" class="footnote" name="idp47733792"><sup class="footnote">[59]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47734880"></a><p>
The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
<span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the
-law to make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical
-reproductions</span>»</span> of their music. But rather than simply granting the
+law to make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mechanical
+reproductions</span>”</span> of their music. But rather than simply granting the
composer complete control over the right to make mechanical
reproductions, Congress gave recording artists a right to record the
music, at a price set by Congress, once the composer allowed it to be
authorizes a recording of his song, others are free to record the same
song, so long as they pay the original composer a fee set by the law.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcompulsorylicense"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatutorylicenses"></a><p>
-American law ordinarily calls this a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">compulsory license,</span>»</span> but I will
-refer to it as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">statutory license.</span>»</span> A statutory license is a license
+American law ordinarily calls this a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">compulsory license,</span>”</span> but I will
+refer to it as a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">statutory license.</span>”</span> A statutory license is a license
whose key terms are set by law. After Congress's amendment of the
Copyright Act in 1909, record companies were free to distribute copies
of recordings so long as they paid the composer (or copyright holder)
Grisham is thus set by Grisham, and copyright law ordinarily says you
have no permission to use Grisham's work except with permission of
Grisham.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39546400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39547376"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47743712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47744688"></a><p>
But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And
thus, in effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording
industry through a kind of piracy—by giving recording artists a
of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress was quite explicit about its
reasons for granting this right. Its fear was the monopoly power of
rights holders, and that that power would stifle follow-on
-creativity.<a href="#ftn.idp39482736" class="footnote" name="idp39482736"><sup class="footnote">[60]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39551152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39552128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39553104"></a><p>
+creativity.<a href="#ftn.idp47679408" class="footnote" name="idp47679408"><sup class="footnote">[60]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47749088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47750064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47751040"></a><p>
While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary
anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these rights. They argue that
the result has been an outpouring of recorded music, with the public
being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
-choice.<a href="#ftn.idp39556304" class="footnote" name="idp39556304"><sup class="footnote">[61]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39557568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39558544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39559520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39560496"></a><p>
+choice.<a href="#ftn.idp47754240" class="footnote" name="idp47754240"><sup class="footnote">[61]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47755504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47756480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47757456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47758432"></a><p>
By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their
creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto"></a><p>
Radio was also born of piracy.
</p><p>
When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public performance</span>»</span> of the composer's work.<a href="#ftn.idp39567088" class="footnote" name="idp39567088"><sup class="footnote">[62]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public performance</span>”</span> of the composer's work.<a href="#ftn.idp47765024" class="footnote" name="idp47765024"><sup class="footnote">[62]</sup></a>
As I described above, the law gives the composer (or copyright holder)
an exclusive right to public performances of his work. The radio
station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a
copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>composer's</em></span> work. The radio station is
also performing a copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>recording artist's</em></span>
-work. It's one thing to have <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> sung on the radio by the
+work. It's one thing to have <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span> sung on the radio by the
local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the
Rolling Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the
value of the composition performed on the radio station. And if the
law were perfectly consistent, the radio station would have to pay the
recording artist for his work, just as it pays the composer of the
music for his work.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39576000"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47773936"></a>
</p><p>
hit. Under our law, every time a radio station plays your song, you
get some money. But Madonna gets nothing, save the indirect effect on
the sale of her CDs. The public performance of her recording is not a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protected</span>»</span> right. The radio station thus gets to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">protected</span>”</span> right. The radio station thus gets to
<span class="emphasis"><em>pirate</em></span> the value of Madonna's work without paying
her anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39581392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39582368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39583344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47779328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47780304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47781280"></a><p>
No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law
ordinarily gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making
the choice for him or her, the law gives the radio station the right
to take something for nothing.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39585088"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Cable TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47783024"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Cable TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
</p><p>
When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
broadcasters' content, but more egregiously than anything Napster ever
did— Napster never charged for the content it enabled others to
give away.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39589488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39590608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39591360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47787424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47788544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47789296"></a><p>
Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.
Rosel Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unfair and potentially destructive competition.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39592768" class="footnote" name="idp39592768"><sup class="footnote">[63]</sup></a>
-There may have been a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public interest</span>»</span> in spreading the reach of cable
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">unfair and potentially destructive competition.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47790704" class="footnote" name="idp47790704"><sup class="footnote">[63]</sup></a>
+There may have been a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public interest</span>”</span> in spreading the reach of cable
TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the National Association
-of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during testimony, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does public
-interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39595488" class="footnote" name="idp39595488"><sup class="footnote">[64]</sup></a>
+of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during testimony, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Does public
+interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47793424" class="footnote" name="idp47793424"><sup class="footnote">[64]</sup></a>
As another broadcaster put it,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the
only business I know of where the product that is being sold is not
-paid for.<a href="#ftn.idp39597200" class="footnote" name="idp39597200"><sup class="footnote">[65]</sup></a>
+paid for.<a href="#ftn.idp47795136" class="footnote" name="idp47795136"><sup class="footnote">[65]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable enough:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
All we are asking for is a very simple thing, that people who now
take our property for nothing pay for it. We are trying to stop
piracy and I don't think there is any lesser word to describe it. I
-think there are harsher words which would fit it.<a href="#ftn.idp39599632" class="footnote" name="idp39599632"><sup class="footnote">[66]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39600848"></a><p>
-These were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free-ride[rs],</span>»</span> Screen Actor's Guild president Charlton
-Heston said, who were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depriving actors of
-compensation.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39602576" class="footnote" name="idp39602576"><sup class="footnote">[67]</sup></a>
+think there are harsher words which would fit it.<a href="#ftn.idp47797568" class="footnote" name="idp47797568"><sup class="footnote">[66]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47798784"></a><p>
+These were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free-ride[rs],</span>”</span> Screen Actor's Guild president Charlton
+Heston said, who were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">depriving actors of
+compensation.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47800512" class="footnote" name="idp47800512"><sup class="footnote">[67]</sup></a>
</p><p>
But again, there was another side to the debate. As Assistant Attorney
General Edwin Zimmerman put it,
question here is how much compensation they should have and
-how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<a href="#ftn.idp39605632" class="footnote" name="idp39605632"><sup class="footnote">[68]</sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39607824"></a>
+how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<a href="#ftn.idp47803568" class="footnote" name="idp47803568"><sup class="footnote">[68]</sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47805760"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Copyright owners took the cable companies to court. Twice the Supreme
Court held that the cable companies owed the copyright owners nothing.
</p><p>
It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question
-of whether cable companies had to pay for the content they <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirated.</span>»</span>
+of whether cable companies had to pay for the content they <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirated.</span>”</span>
In the end, Congress resolved this question in the same way that it
resolved the question about record players and player pianos. Yes,
cable companies would have to pay for the content that they broadcast;
but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
owner. The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't
exercise veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable
-companies thus built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> of the value
+companies thus built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> of the value
created by broadcasters' content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39611152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39612128"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47809088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47810064"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>These separate stories</strong></span> sing a
-common theme. If <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> means using value from someone
+common theme. If <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> means using value from someone
else's creative property without permission from that creator—as
-it is increasingly described today<a href="#ftn.idp39606816" class="footnote" name="idp39606816"><sup class="footnote">[69]</sup></a>
+it is increasingly described today<a href="#ftn.idp47804752" class="footnote" name="idp47804752"><sup class="footnote">[69]</sup></a>
— then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry affected by copyright
today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of
piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. … The list is long and
could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
last. Every generation—until now.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp39479568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39479568" class="para"><sup class="para">[51] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp47676240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47676240" class="para"><sup class="para">[51] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39480208"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47676880"></a>
I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary
history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 87–93,
-which details Edison's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">adventures</span>»</span> with copyright and patent.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39487904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39487904" class="para"><sup class="para">[52] </sup></a>
+which details Edison's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">adventures</span>”</span> with copyright and patent.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47685216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47685216" class="para"><sup class="para">[52] </sup></a>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent Motion
Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and expanded texts
-posted at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion Picture Patents
-Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>»</span> available at
+posted at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion Picture Patents
+Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>”</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the
-limits imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
+limits imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From
Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and
-the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (September 2002), University of
+the Propertization of Copyright</span>”</span> (September 2002), University of
Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics,
Working Paper No. 159.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39490944"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39493680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39493680" class="para"><sup class="para">[53] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47688256"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47690992" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47690992" class="para"><sup class="para">[53] </sup></a>
-Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents Majority</em>, archived at
+Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents Majority</em>, archived at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39514672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39514672" class="para"><sup class="para">[54] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47711984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47711984" class="para"><sup class="para">[54] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on
S. 6330 and H.R. 19853 Before the (Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th
of South Dakota, chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the
Copyright Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39516080"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39519648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39519648" class="para"><sup class="para">[55] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47713392"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47716960" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47716960" class="para"><sup class="para">[55] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223
(statement of Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39521216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39521216" class="para"><sup class="para">[56] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47718528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47718528" class="para"><sup class="para">[56] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226
(statement of Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39522560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39522560" class="para"><sup class="para">[57] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47719872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47719872" class="para"><sup class="para">[57] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23
(statement of John Philip Sousa, composer).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39533840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39533840" class="para"><sup class="para">[58] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47731152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47731152" class="para"><sup class="para">[58] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84
(statement of Albert Walker, representative of the Auto-Music
Perforating Company of New York).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39536480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39536480" class="para"><sup class="para">[59] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47733792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47733792" class="para"><sup class="para">[59] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
Graphophone Company Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39482736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39482736" class="para"><sup class="para">[60] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47679408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47679408" class="para"><sup class="para">[60] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
sess., 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted
in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and
Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39556304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39556304" class="para"><sup class="para">[61] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47754240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47754240" class="para"><sup class="para">[61] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee
on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8
March 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to
-this report.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39567088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39567088" class="para"><sup class="para">[62] </sup></a>
+this report.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47765024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47765024" class="para"><sup class="para">[62] </sup></a>
See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At the beginning,
-record companies printed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast</span>»</span> and other
+record companies printed <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast</span>”</span> and other
messages purporting to restrict the ability to play a record on a
radio station. Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument that a
warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
-Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
+Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
-Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 281.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39570560"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39571312"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39592768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39592768" class="para"><sup class="para">[63] </sup></a>
+Copyright,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 281.
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47768496"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47769248"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47790704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47790704" class="para"><sup class="para">[63] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)
(statement of Rosel H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39589632"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39595488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39595488" class="para"><sup class="para">[64] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47787568"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47793424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47793424" class="para"><sup class="para">[64] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39597200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39597200" class="para"><sup class="para">[65] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47795136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47795136" class="para"><sup class="para">[65] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39599632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39599632" class="para"><sup class="para">[66] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47797568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47797568" class="para"><sup class="para">[66] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.
Krim, president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of
United Artists Television, Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39602576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39602576" class="para"><sup class="para">[67] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47800512" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47800512" class="para"><sup class="para">[67] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (statement of Charlton Heston,
president of the Screen Actors Guild).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39603344"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39605632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39605632" class="para"><sup class="para">[68] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47801280"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47803568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47803568" class="para"><sup class="para">[68] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M.
Zimmerman, acting assistant attorney general).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39606944"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39606816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39606816" class="para"><sup class="para">[69] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47804880"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47804752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47804752" class="para"><sup class="para">[69] </sup></a>
See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The Engine
of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free
Information</em>, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The
threat of piracy—the use of someone else's creative work without
-permission or compensation—has grown with the Internet.</span>»</span>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Chapter 5. Chapter Five: <span class="quote">
«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
+permission or compensation—has grown with the Internet.</span>”</span>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Chapter 5. Chapter Five: <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">Piracy</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There is piracy</strong></span> of copyrighted
material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in many forms. The most
significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized taking of other
justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
</p><p>
-But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span>
+But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span>
that is more directly related to the Internet. That taking, too, seems
wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before we paint this
-taking <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> however, we should understand its nature a bit more.
+taking <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> however, we should understand its nature a bit more.
For the harm of this taking is significantly more ambiguous than
outright copying, and the law should account for that ambiguity, as it
has so often done in the past.
-</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39623808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
+</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47821744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there
are businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted
content, copy it, and sell it—all without the permission of a copyright
owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
-every year to physical piracy<a href="#ftn.idp39605760" class="footnote" name="idp39605760"><sup class="footnote">[70]</sup></a>
+every year to physical piracy<a href="#ftn.idp47803696" class="footnote" name="idp47803696"><sup class="footnote">[70]</sup></a>
(that works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA
estimates that it loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
</p><p>
If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are
its laws regardless of their source. The international law under which
these nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden
-of intellectual property law.<a href="#ftn.idp39633536" class="footnote" name="idp39633536"><sup class="footnote">[71]</sup></a> In my view, more developing nations should take
+of intellectual property law.<a href="#ftn.idp47831472" class="footnote" name="idp47831472"><sup class="footnote">[71]</sup></a> In my view, more developing nations should take
advantage of that opportunity, but when they don't, then their laws
should be respected. And under the laws of these nations, this piracy
is wrong.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39637456"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47835392"></a><p>
Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in
any case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access
to American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have
bought those American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any
-less money than they otherwise would have had.<a href="#ftn.idp39638800" class="footnote" name="idp39638800"><sup class="footnote">[72]</sup></a>
+less money than they otherwise would have had.<a href="#ftn.idp47836736" class="footnote" name="idp47836736"><sup class="footnote">[72]</sup></a>
</p><p>
This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many
thousands of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay
for the content they have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree
the harm caused by such taking. Extremists in this debate love to say,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into Barnes & Noble and take a book off of the shelf
-without paying; why should it be any different with on-line music?</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into Barnes & Noble and take a book off of the shelf
+without paying; why should it be any different with on-line music?</span>”</span>
The difference is, of course, that when you take a book from Barnes &
Noble, it has one less book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3
from a computer network, there is not one less CD that can be sold.
The physics of piracy of the intangible are different from the physics of
piracy of the tangible.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39643792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47841728"></a><p>
This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a
property right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a
property right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the
the copyright owner doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There
are exceptions: important statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted
content regardless of the wish of the copyright owner. Those licenses
-give people the right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take</span>»</span> copyrighted content whether or not the
+give people the right to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">take</span>”</span> copyrighted content whether or not the
copyright owner wants to sell. But
wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If we have
a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
-permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> means.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39647504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39648256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39649264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39650272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39651024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39651776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39652528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39653536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39654288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39655296"></a><p>
+permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> means.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47845440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47846192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47847200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47848208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47848960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47849712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47850464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47851472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47852224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47853232"></a><p>
Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
-piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
+piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">steal</span>”</span>
Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on Microsoft. Microsoft
loses the value of the software that was taken. But it gains users who
are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the nation
Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating
system, then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying
Microsoft. Without piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39657824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47855760"></a><p>
This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law
students, for example, are given free access to the two largest legal
databases. The companies marketing both hope the students will become
so used to their service that they will want to use it and not the
other when they become lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39660064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39660816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39661568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39662320"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47857584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47858336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47859088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47859840"></a><p>
Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the
alcoholic a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that
will make it more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we
is flat out wrong.
</p><p>
But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
-suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is. Or
-at least, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong if that term is understood in the
-way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> are useful
+suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> is. Or
+at least, not all <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> is wrong if that term is understood in the
+way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> are useful
and productive, to produce either new content or new ways of doing
business. Neither our tradition nor any tradition has ever banned all
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> in that sense of the term.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> in that sense of the term.
</p><p>
This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest
piracy concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we
should push us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this
sharing to survive.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piracy II</h2></div></div></div><p>
-The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s]
-the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39671520" class="footnote" name="idp39671520"><sup class="footnote">[73]</sup></a>
+The key to the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> that the law aims to quash is a use that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rob[s]
+the author of [his] profit.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47869040" class="footnote" name="idp47869040"><sup class="footnote">[73]</sup></a>
This means we must determine whether
and how much p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the
law should seek to either prevent it or find an alternative to assure the
author of his profit.
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39673920"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39674672"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39675680"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47871440"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47872192"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47873200"></a>
<a class="indexterm" name="idxnapster"></a>
Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of
the Napster technology had not made any major technological
innovations. Like every great advance in innovation on the Internet
-(and, arguably, off the Internet as well<a href="#ftn.idp39677920" class="footnote" name="idp39677920"><sup class="footnote">[74]</sup></a>), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply
+(and, arguably, off the Internet as well<a href="#ftn.idp47875440" class="footnote" name="idp47875440"><sup class="footnote">[74]</sup></a>), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply
put together components that had been developed independently.
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39681984"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39682736"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39683744"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47879504"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47880256"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47881264"></a>
The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999,
Napster amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After
eighteen months, there were close to 80 million registered users of the
-system.<a href="#ftn.idp39684976" class="footnote" name="idp39684976"><sup class="footnote">[75]</sup></a>
+system.<a href="#ftn.idp47882496" class="footnote" name="idp47882496"><sup class="footnote">[75]</sup></a>
Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other services emerged
to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p service. It
boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are different
users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend—
or your 20,000 best friends.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39689584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47887104"></a><p>
According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans
have tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in
September 2002 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded
-music—28 percent of Americans older than 12.<a href="#ftn.idp39690016" class="footnote" name="idp39690016"><sup class="footnote">[76]</sup></a>
+music—28 percent of Americans older than 12.<a href="#ftn.idp47887536" class="footnote" name="idp47887536"><sup class="footnote">[76]</sup></a>
A survey by the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>
estimated that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to
-exchange content in May 2003.<a href="#ftn.idp39693696" class="footnote" name="idp39693696"><sup class="footnote">[77]</sup></a>
+exchange content in May 2003.<a href="#ftn.idp47891216" class="footnote" name="idp47891216"><sup class="footnote">[77]</sup></a>
The vast majority of these are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a
-massive quantity of content is being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The
+massive quantity of content is being <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taken</span>”</span> on these networks. The
ease and inexpensiveness of file-sharing networks have inspired
millions to enjoy music in a way that they hadn't before.
</p><p>
carefully than the polarized voices around this debate usually
do—the kinds of sharing that file sharing enables, and the kinds
of harm it entails.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingfourtypesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39698352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingfourtypesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47895872"></a><p>
File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these
different kinds into four types.
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39701344"></a><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47898864"></a><p>
There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying
sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were
part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace
magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when
-she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recalling</span>»</span> old
+she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">recalling</span>”</span> old
songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was
available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a
violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not
Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access
to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner
wants to give away.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39707824"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47905344"></a><p>
How do these different types of sharing balance out?
</p><p>
Let's start with some simple but important points. From the
perspective of the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the
perspective of economics, only type A sharing is clearly
-harmful.<a href="#ftn.idp39709648" class="footnote" name="idp39709648"><sup class="footnote">[78]</sup></a>
+harmful.<a href="#ftn.idp47907168" class="footnote" name="idp47907168"><sup class="footnote">[78]</sup></a>
Type B sharing is illegal but plainly beneficial. Type C sharing is
illegal, yet good for society (since more exposure to music is good)
and harmless to the artist (since the work is not otherwise
harmful type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood,
composers complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained
about radio, and broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music
-industry complains that type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> that is
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">devastating</span>»</span> the industry.
+industry complains that type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">theft</span>”</span> that is
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">devastating</span>”</span> the industry.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassette"></a><p>
While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how
harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's
practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of
cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst
-& Young put it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular
-technology, the labels fought it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39716128" class="footnote" name="idp39716128"><sup class="footnote">[79]</sup></a>
+& Young put it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular
+technology, the labels fought it.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47913648" class="footnote" name="idp47913648"><sup class="footnote">[79]</sup></a>
The labels claimed that every album taped was an album unsold, and
when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed
that its point was proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or
regulating technology was the answer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39720800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47918320"></a><p>
Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to
enact regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
-turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">crisis</span>’</span> … was not the fault of the
+turnaround. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the end,</span>”</span> Cap Gemini concludes,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">crisis</span>’</span> … was not the fault of the
tapers—who did not [stop after MTV came into
being]—but had to a large extent resulted from stagnation in musical
-innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39640176" class="footnote" name="idp39640176"><sup class="footnote">[80]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39724640"></a><p>
+innovation at the major labels.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47838112" class="footnote" name="idp47838112"><sup class="footnote">[80]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47922160"></a><p>
But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is
wrong today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to
the industry in particular, and society in general—or at least
</p><p>
We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.
-The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">net harm</span>»</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which type
+The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">net harm</span>”</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which type
A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing
networks would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would
</p><p>
In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent,
from 882 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7
-percent.<a href="#ftn.idp39731072" class="footnote" name="idp39731072"><sup class="footnote">[81]</sup></a>
+percent.<a href="#ftn.idp47928592" class="footnote" name="idp47928592"><sup class="footnote">[81]</sup></a>
This confirms a trend over the past few years. The RIAA blames
Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that
could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more
than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
-account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
-price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39735600" class="footnote" name="idp39735600"><sup class="footnote">[82]</sup></a>
+account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
+price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47933120" class="footnote" name="idp47933120"><sup class="footnote">[82]</sup></a>
Competition from other forms of media could also account for some of
-the decline. As Jane Black of <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
+the decline. As Jane Black of <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The
soundtrack to the film <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of
$18.98. You could get the whole movie [on DVD] for
-$19.99.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39739616" class="footnote" name="idp39739616"><sup class="footnote">[83]</sup></a>
+$19.99.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47937136" class="footnote" name="idp47937136"><sup class="footnote">[83]</sup></a>
</p><p>
</p><p>
There are too many different things happening at the same time to
explain these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable:
-The recording industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What's the difference between
-downloading a song and stealing a CD?</span>»</span>—but their own numbers
+The recording industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What's the difference between
+downloading a song and stealing a CD?</span>”</span>—but their own numbers
reveal the difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to
sell. Every taking is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the
RIAA provides, it is absolutely clear that the same is not true of
downloads. If every download were a lost sale—if every use of
-Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of [his] profit</span>»</span>—then the industry
+Kazaa <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of [his] profit</span>”</span>—then the industry
would have suffered a 100 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7
percent drop. If 2.6 times the number of CDs sold were downloaded for
free, and yet sales revenue dropped by just 6.7 percent, then there is
-a huge difference between <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39744032"></a><p>
+a huge difference between <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47941552"></a><p>
These are the harms—alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's
assume, real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on
the recording industry. What value does it produce in addition to
is technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially
available. This is not a small category of content. There are
millions of tracks that are no longer commercially
-available.<a href="#ftn.idp39745152" class="footnote" name="idp39745152"><sup class="footnote">[84]</sup></a>
+available.<a href="#ftn.idp47942672" class="footnote" name="idp47942672"><sup class="footnote">[84]</sup></a>
And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic
sense <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39748640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39749648"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47946160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47947168"></a><p>
In real space—long before the Internet—the market had a simple
response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are
thousands of used book and used record stores in America
-today.<a href="#ftn.idp39751136" class="footnote" name="idp39751136"><sup class="footnote">[85]</sup></a>
+today.<a href="#ftn.idp47948656" class="footnote" name="idp47948656"><sup class="footnote">[85]</sup></a>
These stores buy content from owners, then sell the content they
buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell this
content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
money from the content they sell; but as with cable companies before
statutory licensing, they don't have to pay the copyright owner for
the content they sell.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39756320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39757328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47953840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47954848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson"></a><p>
Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used
record stores. It is different, of course, because the person making
the content available isn't making money from making the content
available. It is also different, of course, because in real space,
when I sell a record, I don't have it anymore, while in cyberspace,
-when someone shares my 1949 recording of Bernstein's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>»</span>
+when someone shares my 1949 recording of Bernstein's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>”</span>
I still have it. That difference would matter economically if the
owner of the copyright were selling the record in competition to my
sharing. But we're talking about the class of content that is not
stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be
shut as well?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39763344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39764096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47960864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47961616"></a><p>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable
type D sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners
want to have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This
day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
-would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> book. People would read
+would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">real</span>”</span> book. People would read
part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or not. If
they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's content is
type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread, then
both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
great book!)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39767184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47964704"></a><p>
Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society
with no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem
of type A sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we
lose something important in order to protect type A content.
</p><p>
The point throughout is this: While the recording industry
-understandably says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>»</span> we must also ask,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
+understandably says, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>”</span> we must also ask,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
-unavailable?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39770112"></a><p>
+unavailable?</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47967632"></a><p>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this
-chapter, much of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly
+chapter, much of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> that file sharing enables is plainly
legal and good. And like the piracy I described in chapter
-<a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Chapter Four: «Pirates»">4</a>, much of
+<a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Chapter Four: “Pirates”">4</a>, much of
this piracy is motivated by a new way of spreading content caused by
changes in the technology of distribution. Thus, consistent with the
tradition that gave us Hollywood, radio, the recording industry, and
balance. The law should seek that balance, and that balance will be
found only with time.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But isn't the war just a war against illegal sharing? Isn't the target
-just what you call type A sharing?</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But isn't the war just a war against illegal sharing? Isn't the target
+just what you call type A sharing?</span>”</span>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitszerotolerancein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnapsterinfringingmaterialblockedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharinginfringementprotectionsin"></a><p>
You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect
of the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far
infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4
percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to zero.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39779984" class="footnote" name="idp39779984"><sup class="footnote">[86]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39782240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39783216"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">down to zero.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47977504" class="footnote" name="idp47977504"><sup class="footnote">[86]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47979760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47980736"></a><p>
If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to
assure that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance
The court's ruling means that we as a society must lose the benefits of
p2p, even for the totally legal and beneficial uses they serve, simply to
assure that there are zero copyright infringements caused by p2p.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39785216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47982736"></a><p>
Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the
content industry that we know today. The history of American law has
been a process of balance. As new technologies changed the way content
technology. In this adjustment, the law sought to ensure the
legitimate rights of creators while protecting innovation. Sometimes
this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes less.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39787056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39788064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39794768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39795776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39796784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39797792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39798800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39799552"></a><p>
-So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened the
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
47984576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47985584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47992288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47993296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47994304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47995312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47996320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp47997072"></a><p>
+So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>”</span> threatened the
interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be
paid, but at a price set by Congress. But when radio started
broadcasting the recordings made by these recording artists, and they
-complained to Congress that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being
+complained to Congress that their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> was not being
respected (since the radio station did not have to pay them for the
creativity it broadcast), Congress rejected their claim. An indirect
benefit was enough.
compensation, but at a level set by the law. It likewise gave cable
companies the right to the content, so long as they paid the statutory
price.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39804384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39805360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48001552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48002528"></a><p>
This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player
Congress chose a path that would assure
<span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past
(broadcasters) control over the future (cable).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39808384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39809248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39810224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbetamax"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonybetamaxtechnologydevelopedby"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48005552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48006416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48007392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbetamax"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonybetamaxtechnologydevelopedby"></a><p>
In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major
producers and distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against
another technology, the video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to
Universal's claim against Sony was relatively simple: Sony produced a
device, Disney and Universal claimed, that enabled consumers to engage
in copyright infringement. Because the device that Sony built had a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">record</span>»</span> button, the device could be used to record copyrighted movies
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">record</span>”</span> button, the device could be used to record copyrighted movies
and shows. Sony was therefore benefiting from the copyright
infringement of its customers. It should therefore, Disney and
Universal claimed, be partially liable for that infringement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39816944"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48014112"></a><p>
There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did
decide to design its machine to make it very simple to record television
shows. It could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct
copying from a television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the
-machine to copy only if there were a special <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy me</span>»</span> signal on the
+machine to copy only if there were a special <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy me</span>”</span> signal on the
line. It was clear that there were many television shows that did not
grant anyone permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no
doubt the majority of shows would not have authorized copying. And
system to minimize the opportunity for copyright infringement. It did
not, and for that, Disney and Universal wanted to hold it responsible
for the architecture it chose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39821264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvalentijackonvcrtechnology"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48018432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvalentijackonvcrtechnology"></a><p>
MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal
-champion. Valenti called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20, 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we
+champion. Valenti called VCRs <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>”</span> He warned,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">When there are 20, 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we
will be invaded by millions of <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">tapeworms,</span>’</span> eating away
at the very heart and essence of the most precious asset the copyright
-owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39825392" class="footnote" name="idp39825392"><sup class="footnote">[87]</sup></a>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and
-creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation
+owner has, his copyright.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48022560" class="footnote" name="idp48022560"><sup class="footnote">[87]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and
+creative judgment,</span>”</span> he told Congress, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to understand the devastation
on the after-theater marketplace caused by the hundreds of millions of
tapings that will adversely impact on the future of the creative
community in this country. It is simply a question of basic economics
-and plain common sense.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39827424" class="footnote" name="idp39827424"><sup class="footnote">[88]</sup></a>
+and plain common sense.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48024592" class="footnote" name="idp48024592"><sup class="footnote">[88]</sup></a>
Indeed, as surveys would later show, 45
-percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or more<a href="#ftn.idp39828400" class="footnote" name="idp39828400"><sup class="footnote">[89]</sup></a>
-— a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
+percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or more<a href="#ftn.idp48025568" class="footnote" name="idp48025568"><sup class="footnote">[89]</sup></a>
+— a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair.</span>”</span> By
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
copyright infringement without creating a mechanism to compensate
-copyright owners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from the
+copyright owners,</span>”</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">take from the
owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby
-profit from its reproduction.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39831328" class="footnote" name="idp39831328"><sup class="footnote">[90]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39832320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39833296"></a><p>
+profit from its reproduction.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48028496" class="footnote" name="idp48028496"><sup class="footnote">[90]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48029488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48030464"></a><p>
It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme
Court. In the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
includes Hollywood in its jurisdiction—leading Judge Alex
-Kozinski, who sits on that court, refers to it as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood
-Circuit</span>»</span>—held that Sony would be liable for the copyright
+Kozinski, who sits on that court, refers to it as the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hollywood
+Circuit</span>”</span>—held that Sony would be liable for the copyright
infringement made possible by its machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's
rule, this totally familiar technology—which Jack Valenti had
-called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse
+called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler of the American film industry</span>”</span> (worse
yet, it was a <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the
American film industry)—was an illegal
-technology.<a href="#ftn.idp39835408" class="footnote" name="idp39835408"><sup class="footnote">[91]</sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39837888"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39838768"></a><p>
+technology.<a href="#ftn.idp48032576" class="footnote" name="idp48032576"><sup class="footnote">[91]</sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48035056"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48035936"></a><p>
But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.
and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the
varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably
implicated
-by such new technology.<a href="#ftn.idp39841536" class="footnote" name="idp39841536"><sup class="footnote">[92]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39843328"></a><p>
+by such new technology.<a href="#ftn.idp48038704" class="footnote" name="idp48038704"><sup class="footnote">[92]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48040496"></a><p>
Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision. But as
with the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress
ignored the request. Congress was convinced that American film got
-enough, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding. If we put these cases
+enough, this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> notwithstanding. If we put these cases
together, a pattern is clear:
-</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">CASE</th><th align="left">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">
«<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>»</span></th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Recordings</td><td align="left">Composers</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Recording artists</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cable TV</td><td align="left">Broadcasters</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VCR</td><td align="left">Film creators</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp39857504"></a><p>
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">CASE</th><th align="left">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>”</span></th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Recordings</td><td align="left">Composers</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Recording artists</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cable TV</td><td align="left">Broadcasters</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VCR</td><td align="left">Film creators</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp48054672"></a><p>
In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the
-way content was distributed.<a href="#ftn.idp39858848" class="footnote" name="idp39858848"><sup class="footnote">[93]</sup></a>
+way content was distributed.<a href="#ftn.idp48056016" class="footnote" name="idp48056016"><sup class="footnote">[93]</sup></a>
In each case, throughout our history,
-that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free ride</span>»</span> on someone else's
+that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free ride</span>”</span> on someone else's
work.
</p><p>
In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of
these cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should
assure that the copyright holder get all the value that his copyright
-created. In every case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span>
+created. In every case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span>
In every case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in
-the behavior of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
+the behavior of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirates.</span>”</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the
interests at stake.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39867536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48064704"></a><p>
When you think across these examples, and the other examples that
make up the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes
sense. Was Walt Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators
to $15 million in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had
controlled film? Should every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get
permission to record a song?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39869280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48066448"></a><p>
We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition
has answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated,
-copyright <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control
-over all possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39871072" class="footnote" name="idp39871072"><sup class="footnote">[94]</sup></a>
+copyright <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control
+over all possible uses of his work.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48068240" class="footnote" name="idp48068240"><sup class="footnote">[94]</sup></a>
Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined
by balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right
against the burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this
We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the
Internet is changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet
(wires vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network
-should not become a tool for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from artists. But neither
+should not become a tool for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stealing</span>”</span> from artists. But neither
should the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which
artists (or more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in
some detail in the last chapter of this book, we should be securing
superior mode of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies
can be ideally efficient in moving content across a widely diverse
network. Left to develop, they could make the network vastly more
-efficient. Yet these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz
-writes in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the P2P
-fight.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39876912" class="footnote" name="idp39876912"><sup class="footnote">[95]</sup></a>
+efficient. Yet these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>”</span> as John Schwartz
+writes in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">could be delayed in the P2P
+fight.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48074080" class="footnote" name="idp48074080"><sup class="footnote">[95]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk
-about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
-argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
-incentives,</span>»</span> they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
-content,</span>»</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our
+about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">balance,</span>”</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
+argument. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
+incentives,</span>”</span> they say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
+content,</span>”</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">is our
<span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
<span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">rebalance</span>’</span> our property rights? Do you have to wait
before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why
should Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do
we ask whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we
-arrest him?</span>»</span>
+arrest him?</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>,</span>»</span> the warriors
-insist. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">And it should be protected just as any other property
-is protected.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp39605760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39605760" class="para"><sup class="para">[70] </sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>,</span>”</span> the warriors
+insist. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">And it should be protected just as any other property
+is protected.</span>”</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp47803696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47803696" class="para"><sup class="para">[70] </sup></a>
See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), <em class="citetitle">The
Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>, July 2003, available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #14</a>. See
-also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial
+also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial
Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39633536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39633536" class="para"><sup class="para">[71] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47831472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47831472" class="para"><sup class="para">[71] </sup></a>
See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
<em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The
be able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the
TRIPS framework.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39534560"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39636240"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39638800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39638800" class="para"><sup class="para">[72] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47731872"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47834176"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47836736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47836736" class="para"><sup class="para">[72] </sup></a>
For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York: Amacom, 2002),
-144–90. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In some instances … the impact of piracy on the
+144–90. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In some instances … the impact of piracy on the
copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the work will
be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the individual
engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
-pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39640608"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39671520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39671520" class="para"><sup class="para">[73] </sup></a>
+pirating were not an option.</span>”</span> Ibid., 149.
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47838544"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47869040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47869040" class="para"><sup class="para">[73] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39677920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39677920" class="para"><sup class="para">[74] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47875440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47875440" class="para"><sup class="para">[74] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39678560"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47876080"></a>
See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary
National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York:
HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies
reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89–92, 139.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39639920"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39684976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39684976" class="para"><sup class="para">[75] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47837856"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47882496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47882496" class="para"><sup class="para">[75] </sup></a>
-See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
-Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">New Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster Names CEO,
-Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1;
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John Naughton,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London) <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39690016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39690016" class="para"><sup class="para">[76] </sup></a>
+See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">San
+Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>”</span>
+<em class="citetitle">New Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Napster Names CEO,
+Secures New Financing,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1;
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up Call,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John Naughton,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>”</span> (London) <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47887536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47887536" class="para"><sup class="para">[76] </sup></a>
See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music Distribution</em>
(September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of Americans aged twelve
and older have downloaded music off of the Internet and 30 percent have
listened to digital music files stored on their computers.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39693696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39693696" class="para"><sup class="para">[77] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47891216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47891216" class="para"><sup class="para">[77] </sup></a>
-Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
+Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39709648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39709648" class="para"><sup class="para">[78] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47907168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47907168" class="para"><sup class="para">[78] </sup></a>
See Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>, 148–49.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39680608"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39716128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39716128" class="para"><sup class="para">[79] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47878128"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47913648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47913648" class="para"><sup class="para">[79] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39716768"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39717520"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47914288"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47915040"></a>
See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding
practice of cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising
-campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping
-is killing music.</span>»</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat,
+campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Home taping
+is killing music.</span>”</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat,
the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer
behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten had taped
music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law</em>,
OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
-October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp39640176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39640176" class="para"><sup class="para">[80] </sup></a>
+October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp47838112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47838112" class="para"><sup class="para">[80] </sup></a>
U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39731072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39731072" class="para"><sup class="para">[81] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47928592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47928592" class="para"><sup class="para">[81] </sup></a>
See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend Statistics</em>,
available at
report indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry
Association of America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#16</a>: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music
+#16</a>: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music
have fallen by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million
units in 2002 in the United States (based on units shipped). In terms
of sales, revenues are down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6
billion last year (based on U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music
industry worldwide has gone from a $39 billion industry in 2000 down
to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based on U.S. dollar value of
-shipments).</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39735600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39735600" class="para"><sup class="para">[82] </sup></a>
-Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>»</span> BusinessWeek online, 13
+shipments).</span>”</span>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47933120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47933120" class="para"><sup class="para">[82] </sup></a>
+Jane Black, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>”</span> BusinessWeek online, 13
February 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39737376"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39739616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39739616" class="para"><sup class="para">[83] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47934896"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47937136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47937136" class="para"><sup class="para">[83] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39745152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39745152" class="para"><sup class="para">[84] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47942672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47942672" class="para"><sup class="para">[84] </sup></a>
By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels
is no longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April
2001) (prepared statement of the Future of Music Coalition), available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39751136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39751136" class="para"><sup class="para">[85] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47948656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47948656" class="para"><sup class="para">[85] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39751776"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47949296"></a>
While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores
in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the
United States, an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter
Market</em> (2002), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Used
records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National
-Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
-Results,</span>»</span> available at
+Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
+Results,</span>”</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39779984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39779984" class="para"><sup class="para">[86] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47977504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47977504" class="para"><sup class="para">[86] </sup></a>
See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34-
35 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183
account of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn,
<em class="citetitle">All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
York: Crown Business, 2003), 269–82.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39825392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39825392" class="para"><sup class="para">[87] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48022560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48022560" class="para"><sup class="para">[87] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on
S. 1758 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st
and 2nd sess., 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion
Picture Association of America, Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39827424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39827424" class="para"><sup class="para">[88] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48024592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48024592" class="para"><sup class="para">[88] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39828400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39828400" class="para"><sup class="para">[89] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48025568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48025568" class="para"><sup class="para">[89] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429,
(C.D. Cal., 1979).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39831328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39831328" class="para"><sup class="para">[90] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48028496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48028496" class="para"><sup class="para">[90] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony
of Jack Valenti).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39835408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39835408" class="para"><sup class="para">[91] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48032576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48032576" class="para"><sup class="para">[91] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.
1981).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39841536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39841536" class="para"><sup class="para">[92] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48038704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48038704" class="para"><sup class="para">[92] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39858848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39858848" class="para"><sup class="para">[93] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39859232"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48056016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48056016" class="para"><sup class="para">[93] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48056400"></a>
These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example,
1992 (Title 17 of the <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
-Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span>
+Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39781984"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39863312"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39871072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39871072" class="para"><sup class="para">[94] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp47979504"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48060480"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48068240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48068240" class="para"><sup class="para">[94] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417,
(1984).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39876912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39876912" class="para"><sup class="para">[95] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48074080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48074080" class="para"><sup class="para">[95] </sup></a>
-John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
-Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 September 2003, C3.
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Part II. <span class="quote">
«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><p>
+John Schwartz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
+Echoes Past Efforts,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 September 2003, C3.
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Part II. <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">Property</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The copyright warriors</strong></span> are right: A
hold out for any price he wants. Markets reckon the supply and demand
that partially determine the price she can get.
</p><p>
-But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> right is a
+But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> right is a
bit misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of
property. Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any
expression is very odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the
table in the backyard—by, for example, going to Sears, buying a
table, and putting it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking
then?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39889024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48086192"></a><p>
The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus
ideas, though that's an important difference. The point instead is that
take anything from you when I copy the way you dress—though I
might seem weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a
woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true
-when I copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">He who receives an idea
+when I copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
-lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39891296" class="footnote" name="idp39891296"><sup class="footnote">[96]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39892752"></a><p>
+lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48088464" class="footnote" name="idp48088464"><sup class="footnote">[96]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48089920"></a><p>
The exceptions to free use are ideas and expressions within the
reach of the law of patent and copyright, and a few other domains that
I won't discuss here. Here the law says you can't take my idea or
But how, and to what extent, and in what form—the details,
in other words—matter. To get a good sense of how this practice
of turning the intangible into property emerged, we need to place this
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in its proper context.<a href="#ftn.idp39895296" class="footnote" name="idp39895296"><sup class="footnote">[97]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> in its proper context.<a href="#ftn.idp48092464" class="footnote" name="idp48092464"><sup class="footnote">[97]</sup></a>
</p><p>
My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the
preceding part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright material is property</span>»</span> in context. Where did the idea come
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright material is property</span>”</span> in context. Where did the idea come
from? What are its limits? How does it function in practice? After
these stories, the significance of this true
-statement—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright material is property</span>»</span>— will be a bit
+statement—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright material is property</span>”</span>— will be a bit
more clear, and its implications will be revealed as quite different
from the implications that the copyright warriors would have us draw.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp39891296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39891296" class="para"><sup class="para">[96] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp48088464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48088464" class="para"><sup class="para">[96] </sup></a>
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (13 August 1813) in
<em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert
Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333–34.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39895296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39895296" class="para"><sup class="para">[97] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48092464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48092464" class="para"><sup class="para">[97] </sup></a>
As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
intangible. A property right is simply a right that an individual has
against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not
attach to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if
the object to which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See
-Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>»</span>
+Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. Chapter Six: Founders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39907680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39908432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39909184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. Chapter Six: Founders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48104848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48105600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48106352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> wrote
<em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> in 1595. The play was first
published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play that Shakespeare had
since. So deeply have the works of a sixteenth-century writer seeped
into our culture that we often don't even recognize their source. I
once overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of
-Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of
-clichés.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39913520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
+Henry V: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of
+clichés.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48110688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
In 1774, almost 180 years after <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> was written, the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy-right</span>»</span> for the work was still thought by many to be the exclusive
-right of a single London publisher, Jacob Tonson.<a href="#ftn.idp39916656" class="footnote" name="idp39916656"><sup class="footnote">[98]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy-right</span>”</span> for the work was still thought by many to be the exclusive
+right of a single London publisher, Jacob Tonson.<a href="#ftn.idp48113824" class="footnote" name="idp48113824"><sup class="footnote">[98]</sup></a>
Tonson was the most prominent of a small group of publishers called
-the Conger<a href="#ftn.idp39920960" class="footnote" name="idp39920960"><sup class="footnote">[99]</sup></a>
+the Conger<a href="#ftn.idp48118128" class="footnote" name="idp48118128"><sup class="footnote">[99]</sup></a>
who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth
-century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span> of
+century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy</span>”</span> of
books that they had acquired from authors. That perpetual right meant
that no
one else could publish copies of a book to which they held the
copyright. Prices of the classics were thus kept high; competition to
produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39923408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39925648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39926656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48120576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48122816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48123824"></a><p>
Now, there's something puzzling about the year 1774 to anyone who
knows a little about copyright law. The better-known year in the
history of copyright is 1710, the year that the British Parliament
-adopted the first <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> act. Known as the Statute of Anne, the
+adopted the first <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> act. Known as the Statute of Anne, the
act stated that all published works would get a copyright term of
fourteen years, renewable once if the author was alive, and that all
works already published by 1710 would get a single term of twenty-one
-additional years.<a href="#ftn.idp39928560" class="footnote" name="idp39928560"><sup class="footnote">[100]</sup></a> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> should have been
+additional years.<a href="#ftn.idp48125728" class="footnote" name="idp48125728"><sup class="footnote">[100]</sup></a> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> should have been
free in 1731. So why was there any issue about it still being under
Tonson's control in 1774?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39931568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39932544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39935008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39935760"></a><p>
-The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48128736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48129712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48132176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48132928"></a><p>
+The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span>
was—indeed, no one had. At the time the English passed the
Statute of Anne, there was no other legislation governing copyrights.
The last law regulating publishers, the Licensing Act of 1662, had
expired in 1695. That law gave publishers a monopoly over publishing,
as a way to make it easier for the Crown to control what was
published. But after it expired, there was no positive law that said
-that the publishers, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stationers,</span>»</span> had an exclusive right to print
+that the publishers, or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Stationers,</span>”</span> had an exclusive right to print
books.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39938192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39939168"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48135360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48136336"></a><p>
There was no <span class="emphasis"><em>positive</em></span> law, but that didn't mean
that there was no law. The Anglo-American legal tradition looks to
both the words of legislatures and the words of judges to know the
rules that are to govern how people are to behave. We call the words
-from legislatures <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">positive law.</span>»</span> We call the words from judges
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common law.</span>»</span> The common law sets the background against which
+from legislatures <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">positive law.</span>”</span> We call the words from judges
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">common law.</span>”</span> The common law sets the background against which
legislatures legislate; the legislature, ordinarily, can trump that
background only if it passes a law to displace it. And so the real
question after the licensing statutes had expired was whether the
common law protected a copyright, independent of any positive law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39942064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39943040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39945024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
-This question was important to the publishers, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">booksellers,</span>»</span> as
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48139232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48140208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48142192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
+This question was important to the publishers, or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">booksellers,</span>”</span> as
they were called, because there was growing competition from foreign
publishers. The Scottish, in particular, were increasingly publishing
and exporting books to England. That competition reduced the profits
ultimately
resulted in the Statute of Anne.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightasnarrowmonopolyright"></a><p>
-The Statute of Anne granted the author or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietor</span>»</span> of a book an
+The Statute of Anne granted the author or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">proprietor</span>”</span> of a book an
exclusive right to print that book. In an important limitation,
however, and to the horror of the booksellers, the law gave the
bookseller that right for a limited term. At the end of that term, the
-copyright <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">expired,</span>»</span> and the work would then be free and could be
+copyright <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">expired,</span>”</span> and the work would then be free and could be
published by anyone. Or so the legislature is thought to have
believed.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39951456"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48148624"></a><p>
Now, the thing to puzzle about for a moment is this: Why would
Parliament limit the exclusive right? Not why would they limit it to
the particular limit they set, but why would they limit the right
<span class="emphasis"><em>at all?</em></span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39953408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39954384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39955136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48150576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48151552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48152304"></a><p>
For the booksellers, and the authors whom they represented, had a very
strong claim. Take <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> as an example: That play
was written by Shakespeare. It was his genius that brought it into the
this play, he didn't make it any harder for others to craft a play. So
why is it that the law would ever allow someone else to come along and
take Shakespeare's play without his, or his estate's, permission? What
-reason is there to allow someone else to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Shakespeare's work?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39957648"></a><p>
+reason is there to allow someone else to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">steal</span>”</span> Shakespeare's work?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48155312"></a><p>
The answer comes in two parts. We first need to see something special
-about the notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> that existed at the time of the
+about the notion of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> that existed at the time of the
Statute of Anne. Second, we have to see something important about
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">booksellers.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39959776"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">booksellers.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48157440"></a><p>
First, about copyright. In the last three hundred years, we have come
-to apply the concept of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> ever more broadly. But in 1710, it
+to apply the concept of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> ever more broadly. But in 1710, it
wasn't so much a concept as it was a very particular right. The
copyright was born as a very specific set of restrictions: It forbade
-others from reprinting a book. In 1710, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy-right</span>»</span> was a right
+others from reprinting a book. In 1710, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy-right</span>”</span> was a right
to use a particular machine to replicate a particular work. It did not
go beyond that very narrow right. It did not control any more
generally how
large collection of restrictions on the freedom of others: It grants
the author the exclusive right to copy, the exclusive right to
distribute, the exclusive right to perform, and so on.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39963328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39964080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48160992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48161744"></a><p>
So, for example, even if the copyright to Shakespeare's works were
perpetual, all that would have meant under the original meaning of the
term was that no one could reprint Shakespeare's work without the
permission of the Shakespeare estate. It would not have controlled
anything, for example, about how the work could be performed, whether
the work could be translated, or whether Kenneth Branagh would be
-allowed to make his films. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy-right</span>»</span> was only an exclusive
+allowed to make his films. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy-right</span>”</span> was only an exclusive
right to print—no less, of course, but also no more.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39966144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39968128"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48163808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48165792"></a><p>
Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British.
-They had had a long and ugly experience with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive rights,</span>»</span>
-especially <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive rights</span>»</span> granted by the Crown. The English had
+They had had a long and ugly experience with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive rights,</span>”</span>
+especially <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive rights</span>”</span> granted by the Crown. The English had
fought a civil war in part about the Crown's practice of handing out
monopolies—especially monopolies for works that already
existed. King Henry VIII granted a patent to print the Bible and a
inventions. And by 1710, Parliament was eager to deal with the growing
monopoly in publishing.
</p><p>
-Thus the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy-right,</span>»</span> when viewed as a monopoly right, was naturally
+Thus the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy-right,</span>”</span> when viewed as a monopoly right, was naturally
viewed as a right that should be limited. (However convincing the
-claim that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it's my property, and I should have it forever,</span>»</span> try
-sounding convincing when uttering, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It's my monopoly, and I should
-have it forever.</span>»</span>) The state would protect the exclusive right, but
+claim that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">it's my property, and I should have it forever,</span>”</span> try
+sounding convincing when uttering, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">It's my monopoly, and I should
+have it forever.</span>”</span>) The state would protect the exclusive right, but
only so long as it benefited society. The British saw the harms from
specialinterest favors; they passed a law to stop them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39972576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39974560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48170240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48172224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></a><p>
Second, about booksellers. It wasn't just that the copyright was a
monopoly. It was also that it was a monopoly held by the booksellers.
Booksellers sound quaint and harmless to us. They were not viewed
were increasingly seen as monopolists of the worst
kind—tools of the Crown's repression, selling the liberty of
England to guarantee themselves a monopoly profit. The attacks against
-these monopolists were harsh: Milton described them as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">old patentees
-and monopolizers in the trade of book-selling</span>»</span>; they were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">men who do
+these monopolists were harsh: Milton described them as <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">old patentees
+and monopolizers in the trade of book-selling</span>”</span>; they were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">men who do
not therefore labour in an honest profession to which learning is
-indetted.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39978672" class="footnote" name="idp39978672"><sup class="footnote">[101]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39979952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39980704"></a><p>
+indetted.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48176336" class="footnote" name="idp48176336"><sup class="footnote">[101]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48177616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48178368"></a><p>
Many believed the power the booksellers exercised over the spread of
knowledge was harming that spread, just at the time the Enlightenment
was teaching the importance of education and knowledge spread
Eye of the Law; it will be a great Cramp to Trade, a Discouragement to
Learning, no Benefit to the Authors, but a general Tax on the Publick;
and all this only to increase the private Gain of the
-Booksellers.<a href="#ftn.idp39989760" class="footnote" name="idp39989760"><sup class="footnote">[102]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39992400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39993376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39994352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39995104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp39996112"></a><p>
+Booksellers.<a href="#ftn.idp48187424" class="footnote" name="idp48187424"><sup class="footnote">[102]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48189648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48190624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48191600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48192352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48193360"></a><p>
Having failed in Parliament, the publishers turned to the courts in a
series of cases. Their argument was simple and direct: The Statute of
Anne gave authors certain protections through positive law, but those
protections were not intended as replacements for the common law.
Instead, they were intended simply to supplement the common law.
Under common law, it was already wrong to take another person's
-creative <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> and use it without his permission. The Statute of
+creative <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> and use it without his permission. The Statute of
Anne, the booksellers argued, didn't change that. Therefore, just
because the protections of the Statute of Anne expired, that didn't
mean the protections of the common law expired: Under the common law
they had the right to ban the publication of a book, even if its
Statute of Anne copyright had expired. This, they argued, was the only
way to protect authors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
39998496"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
48195744"></a><p>
This was a clever argument, and one that had the support of some of
the leading jurists of the day. It also displayed extraordinary
chutzpah. Until then, as law professor Raymond Patterson has put it,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The publishers … had as much concern for authors as a cattle
-rancher has for cattle.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp39722992" class="footnote" name="idp39722992"><sup class="footnote">[103]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The publishers … had as much concern for authors as a cattle
+rancher has for cattle.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp47920512" class="footnote" name="idp47920512"><sup class="footnote">[103]</sup></a>
The bookseller didn't care squat for the rights of the author. His
concern was the monopoly profit that the author's work gave.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0004944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8202192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
The booksellers' argument was not accepted without a fight.
The hero of this fight was a Scottish bookseller named Alexander
-Donaldson.<a href="#ftn.idp40007344" class="footnote" name="idp40007344"><sup class="footnote">[104]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0011088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40011840"></a><p>
+Donaldson.<a href="#ftn.idp48204592" class="footnote" name="idp48204592"><sup class="footnote">[104]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8208336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48209088"></a><p>
Donaldson was an outsider to the London Conger. He began his
career in Edinburgh in 1750. The focus of his business was inexpensive
-reprints <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">of standard works whose copyright term had expired,</span>»</span> at least
-under the Statute of Anne.<a href="#ftn.idp40013392" class="footnote" name="idp40013392"><sup class="footnote">[105]</sup></a>
+reprints <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">of standard works whose copyright term had expired,</span>”</span> at least
+under the Statute of Anne.<a href="#ftn.idp48210640" class="footnote" name="idp48210640"><sup class="footnote">[105]</sup></a>
Donaldson's publishing house prospered
-and became <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something of a center for literary Scotsmen.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">[A]mong
-them,</span>»</span> Professor Mark Rose writes, was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the young James Boswell
+and became <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">something of a center for literary Scotsmen.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">[A]mong
+them,</span>”</span> Professor Mark Rose writes, was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the young James Boswell
who, together with his friend Andrew Erskine, published an anthology
-of contemporary Scottish poems with Donaldson.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp40016736" class="footnote" name="idp40016736"><sup class="footnote">[106]</sup></a>
+of contemporary Scottish poems with Donaldson.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48213984" class="footnote" name="idp48213984"><sup class="footnote">[106]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw"></a><p>
When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in
Scotland, he responded by moving his shop to London, where he sold
-inexpensive editions <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">of the most popular English books, in defiance
+inexpensive editions <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">of the most popular English books, in defiance
of the supposed common law right of Literary
-Property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp40019664" class="footnote" name="idp40019664"><sup class="footnote">[107]</sup></a>
+Property.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48216912" class="footnote" name="idp48216912"><sup class="footnote">[107]</sup></a>
His books undercut the Conger prices by 30 to 50 percent, and he
rested his right to compete upon the ground that, under the Statute of
Anne, the works he was selling had passed out of protection.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0021904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
-The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> like
-Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates,</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8219152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
+The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> like
+Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirates,</span>”</span>
the most important early victory being <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0026112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40027088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40030784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40031536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8223360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48224336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48228032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48228784"></a><p>
Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James
-Thomson's poem <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons.</span>»</span> Millar complied with the requirements of
+Thomson's poem <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Seasons.</span>”</span> Millar complied with the requirements of
the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full protection of the
statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor began
printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
-law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<a href="#ftn.idp40033328" class="footnote" name="idp40033328"><sup class="footnote">[108]</sup></a>
+law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<a href="#ftn.idp48230576" class="footnote" name="idp48230576"><sup class="footnote">[108]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord2"></a><p>
Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever
protection the Statute of Anne gave booksellers, it did not, he held,
extinguish any common law right. The question was whether the common
-law would protect the author against subsequent <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span>
+law would protect the author against subsequent <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirates.</span>”</span>
Mansfield's answer was yes: The common law would bar Taylor from
reprinting Thomson's poem without Millar's permission. That common law
rule thus effectively gave the booksellers a perpetual right to
control the publication of any book assigned to them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0037712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40038688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40039664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8234960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48235936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48236912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
Considered as a matter of abstract justice—reasoning as if
justice were just a matter of logical deduction from first
principles—Mansfield's conclusion might make some sense. But
a reasonable period of time. Within twenty-one years, Parliament
believed, Britain would mature from the controlled culture that the
Crown coveted to the free culture that we inherited.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0043232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8240480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></a><p>
The fight to defend the limits of the Statute of Anne was not to end
there, however, and it is here that Donaldson enters the mix.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0047200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40047952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8244448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48245200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></a><p>
Millar died soon after his victory, so his case was not appealed. His
estate sold Thomson's poems to a syndicate of printers that included
-Thomas Beckett.<a href="#ftn.idp40051856" class="footnote" name="idp40051856"><sup class="footnote">[109]</sup></a>
+Thomas Beckett.<a href="#ftn.idp48249104" class="footnote" name="idp48249104"><sup class="footnote">[109]</sup></a>
Donaldson then released an unauthorized edition
of Thomson's works. Beckett, on the strength of the decision in <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>,
got an injunction against Donaldson. Donaldson appealed the case to
the House of Lords, which functioned much like our own Supreme
Court. In February of 1774, that body had the chance to interpret the
meaning of Parliament's limits from sixty years before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0053536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40054512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8250784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48251760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
As few legal cases ever do, <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> drew an
enormous amount of attention throughout Britain. Donaldson's lawyers
argued that whatever rights may have existed under the common law, the
publication came from that statute. Thus, they argued, after the term
specified in the Statute of Anne expired, works that had been
protected by the statute were no longer protected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0059584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8256832"></a><p>
The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were
-presented to the House and voted upon first by the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law lords,</span>»</span>
+presented to the House and voted upon first by the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">law lords,</span>”</span>
members of special legal distinction who functioned much like the
Justices in our Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the
House of Lords generally voted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0061632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8258880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
The reports about the law lords' votes are mixed. On some counts,
it looks as if perpetual copyright prevailed. But there is no ambiguity
Whatever one's understanding of the common law, now a copyright was
fixed for a limited time, after which the work protected by copyright
passed into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0066704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40067456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40068208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40068960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40069712"></a><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The public domain.</span>»</span> Before the case of <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8263952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48264704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48265456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48266208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48266960"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The public domain.</span>”</span> Before the case of <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em>, there was no clear idea of a public domain in
England. Before 1774, there was a strong argument that common law
copyrights were perpetual. After 1774, the public domain was
over creative works expired, and the greatest works in English
history—including those of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson,
and Bunyan—were free of legal restraint.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0071872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40073504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40074480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40075456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40076432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40077408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8269120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48270752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48271728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48272704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48273680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48274656"></a><p>
It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords
fueled an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland,
-where most of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirate publishers</span>»</span> did their work, people
+where most of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirate publishers</span>”</span> did their work, people
celebrated the decision in the streets. As the <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em>
-reported, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No private cause has so much engrossed the attention of the
+reported, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No private cause has so much engrossed the attention of the
public, and none has been tried before the House of Lords in the
-decision of which so many individuals were interested.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great
+decision of which so many individuals were interested.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Great
rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over literary property: bonfires
-and illuminations.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp40080304" class="footnote" name="idp40080304"><sup class="footnote">[110]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0081200"></a><p>
+and illuminations.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48277552" class="footnote" name="idp48277552"><sup class="footnote">[110]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8278448"></a><p>
In London, however, at least among publishers, the reaction was
equally strong in the opposite direction. The <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em>
reported:
Copy-right, are in a manner ruined, and those who after many years
industry thought they had acquired a competency to provide for their
families now find themselves without a shilling to devise to their
-successors.<a href="#ftn.idp40000208" class="footnote" name="idp40000208"><sup class="footnote">[111]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0085104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40085856"></a><p>
+successors.<a href="#ftn.idp48197456" class="footnote" name="idp48197456"><sup class="footnote">[111]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8282352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48283104"></a><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruined</span>»</span> is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ruined</span>”</span> is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to
say that the change was profound. The decision of the House of Lords
meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in
England would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter
context</em></span>, not a context in which the choices about what
culture is available to people and how they get access to it are made
by the few despite the wishes of the many.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0090336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40091312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8287584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48288560"></a><p>
At least, this was the rule in a world where the Parliament is
antimonopoly, resistant to the protectionist pleas of publishers. In a
world where the Parliament is more pliant, free culture would be less
protected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp40092688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40093664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40094640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40095616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40096592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40097568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40098544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40099520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40100496"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp39916656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39916656" class="para"><sup class="para">[98] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp48289936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48290912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48291888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48292864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48293840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48294944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48296272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48297472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48298784"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp48113824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48113824" class="para"><sup class="para">[98] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39917296"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39918048"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48114464"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48115216"></a>
Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent
eighteenth-century literary figures, especially John Dryden, and for his
-handsome <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">definitive editions</span>»</span> of classic works. In addition to <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
+handsome <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">definitive editions</span>”</span> of classic works. In addition to <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
Juliet</em>, he published an astonishing array of works that still remain at the
heart of the English canon, including collected works of Shakespeare, Ben
-Jonson, John Milton, and John Dryden. See Keith Walker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
-Bookseller,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424–31.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39920960" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39920960" class="para"><sup class="para">[99] </sup></a>
+Jonson, John Milton, and John Dryden. See Keith Walker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
+Bookseller,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424–31.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48118128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48118128" class="para"><sup class="para">[99] </sup></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em> (Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), 151–52.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39928560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39928560" class="para"><sup class="para">[100] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48125728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48125728" class="para"><sup class="para">[100] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp39929200"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48126368"></a>
As Siva Vaidhyanathan nicely argues, it is erroneous to call this a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright law.</span>»</span> See Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 40.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39978672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39978672" class="para"><sup class="para">[101] </sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright law.</span>”</span> See Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 40.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48176336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48176336" class="para"><sup class="para">[101] </sup></a>
Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39989760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39989760" class="para"><sup class="para">[102] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48187424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48187424" class="para"><sup class="para">[102] </sup></a>
A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending
in the House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the
the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein
mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et
al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp39722992" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp39722992" class="para"><sup class="para">[103] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp47920512" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp47920512" class="para"><sup class="para">[103] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40000944"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40001696"></a>
-Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48198192"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48198944"></a>
+Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt
Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For a wonderfully compelling account, see
Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40007344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40007344" class="para"><sup class="para">[104] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48204592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48204592" class="para"><sup class="para">[104] </sup></a>
For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and Copyright</em>
(London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40013392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40013392" class="para"><sup class="para">[105] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48210640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48210640" class="para"><sup class="para">[105] </sup></a>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1993), 92.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40014416"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40016736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40016736" class="para"><sup class="para">[106] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48211664"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48213984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48213984" class="para"><sup class="para">[106] </sup></a>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40019664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40019664" class="para"><sup class="para">[107] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48216912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48216912" class="para"><sup class="para">[107] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40020304"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48217552"></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting
Borwell).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40033328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40033328" class="para"><sup class="para">[108] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48230576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48230576" class="para"><sup class="para">[108] </sup></a>
-Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
-Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law Review</em> 29
+Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
+Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law Review</em> 29
(1983): 1152.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40051856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40051856" class="para"><sup class="para">[109] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48249104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48249104" class="para"><sup class="para">[109] </sup></a>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40080304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40080304" class="para"><sup class="para">[110] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48277552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48277552" class="para"><sup class="para">[110] </sup></a>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40000208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40000208" class="para"><sup class="para">[111] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48197456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48197456" class="para"><sup class="para">[111] </sup></a>
Ibid.
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Chapter 7. Chapter Seven: Recorders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdocumentaryfilm"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxelsejon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuseindocumentaryfilm"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsfairuseofcopyrightedmaterialin"></a><p>
Else worked on a documentary that I was involved in. At a break,
he told me a story about the freedom to create with film in America
today.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0113008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8313744"></a><p>
In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner's Ring
Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera.
Stagehands are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera.
it, this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special
about the scene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0117120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40118368"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8318320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48319536"></a><p>
Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>.
For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and of course, to use
copyrighted material you need the permission of the copyright owner,
-unless <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> or some other privilege applies.
+unless <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> or some other privilege applies.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxgraciefilms"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgroeningmatt"></a><p>
Else called <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> creator Matt Groening's office to get permission.
Groening approved the shot. The shot was a four-and-a-halfsecond image
Else called Fox and told them about the clip in the corner of the one
room shot of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission,
Else said. He was just confirming the permission with Fox.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0127488"></a><p>
-Then, as Else told me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two things happened. First we discovered
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8328720"></a><p>
+Then, as Else told me, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">two things happened. First we discovered
… that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at
-least that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation.</span>»</span>
-And second, Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us
+least that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation.</span>”</span>
+And second, Fox <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us
to use this four-point-five seconds of … entirely unsolicited
-<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which was in the corner of the shot.</span>»</span>
+<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which was in the corner of the shot.</span>”</span>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxherrerarebecca"></a><p>
Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone
he thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera. He
-explained to her, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There must be some mistake here. … We're
-asking for your educational rate on this.</span>»</span> That was the educational
+explained to her, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">There must be some mistake here. … We're
+asking for your educational rate on this.</span>”</span> That was the educational
rate, Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to
confirm what he had been told.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0133584"></a><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,</span>»</span> he told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Yes, you
-have your facts straight,</span>»</span> she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8334832"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,</span>”</span> he told me. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Yes, you
+have your facts straight,</span>”</span> she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
clip of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> in the corner of a shot in a documentary film
about
-Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then, astonishingly, Herrera told Else, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">And
-if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys.</span>»</span> As an assistant
-to Herrera told Else later on, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">They don't give a shit. They just want
-the money.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0137536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40138816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40139632"></a><p>
+Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then, astonishingly, Herrera told Else, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">And
+if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys.</span>”</span> As an assistant
+to Herrera told Else later on, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">They don't give a shit. They just want
+the money.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8338784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48340000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48340816"></a><p>
Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was playing
on the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera. To reproduce
this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the
of the copyright who gets to set the price for any use that the law
says the owner gets to control.
</p><p>
-For example, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public performance</span>»</span> is a use of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> that the
+For example, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public performance</span>”</span> is a use of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> that the
copyright owner gets to control. If you take a selection of favorite
-episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets to come see <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">My
-Favorite <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>,</span>»</span> then you need to get permission from the copyright
+episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets to come see <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">My
+Favorite <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>,</span>”</span> then you need to get permission from the copyright
owner. And the copyright owner (rightly, in my view) can charge
whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's her right, as set
by the law.
</p><p>
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first
-thought is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp40146624" class="footnote" name="idp40146624"><sup class="footnote">[112]</sup></a>
+thought is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48347808" class="footnote" name="idp48347808"><sup class="footnote">[112]</sup></a>
Else's use of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>
episode is clearly a fair use of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>—and fair use does
not require the permission of anyone.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0150512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40151792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8351696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48352912"></a><p>
-So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> Here's his reply:
+So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use.</span>”</span> Here's his reply:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst"></a><p>
The <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> fiasco was for me a great lesson in the gulf between what
lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what is crushingly
relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make and
-broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">clearly
-fair use</span>»</span> in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't rely on the
+broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">clearly
+fair use</span>”</span> in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't rely on the
concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0159424"></a><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8360592"></a><p>
Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy
Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> listing the source and licensing status of each
-shot in the film. They take a dim view of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> and a claim of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> can grind the application process to a halt.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0164208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40165024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40165840"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>”</span> listing the source and licensing status of each
+shot in the film. They take a dim view of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use,</span>”</span> and a claim of
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> can grind the application process to a halt.
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8365440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48366256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48367072"></a><p>
I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the first
place. But I knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a history of
I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford Law
School … who confirmed that it was fair use. He also confirmed
-that Fox would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your
-life,</span>»</span> regardless of the merits of my claim. He made clear that it
+that Fox would <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your
+life,</span>”</span> regardless of the merits of my claim. He made clear that it
would boil down to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper
pockets, me or them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0171360"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8372592"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
The question of fair use usually comes up at the end of the
project, when we are up against a release deadline and out of
money.
-</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0174032"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8375264"></a><p>
In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory therefore
supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture. But
in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of
publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has
matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or
not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp40176736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40178064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40179264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40180512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40181840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40183184"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp40146624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40146624" class="para"><sup class="para">[112] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp48377968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48379360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48380624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48381936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48383264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48384544"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp48347808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48347808" class="para"><sup class="para">[112] </sup></a>
-For an excellent argument that such use is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> but that
-lawyers don't permit recognition that it is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> see Richard
-A. Posner with William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
-Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em></span>»</span> (draft on file with author), University of Chicago
+For an excellent argument that such use is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use,</span>”</span> but that
+lawyers don't permit recognition that it is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use,</span>”</span> see Richard
+A. Posner with William F. Patry, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
+Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em></span>”</span> (draft on file with author), University of Chicago
Law School, 5 August 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. Chapter Eight: Transformers</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0186272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40188560"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. Chapter Eight: Transformers</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8387760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48390048"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1993</strong></span>, Alex Alben was a lawyer
working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an innovative company founded
by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop digital
made. Most of his career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was
relatively easy to get permission for that content.
</p><p>
-Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Our
+Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Our
goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of
-Eastwood's films,</span>»</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem
-arose. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No one had ever really done this before,</span>»</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No
+Eastwood's films,</span>”</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem
+arose. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No one had ever really done this before,</span>”</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No
one had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an
-actor's career.</span>»</span>
+actor's career.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.
-Slade asked, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>»</span>
+Slade asked, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
+Alben replied, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything
-else that we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go
-for it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp40200752" class="footnote" name="idp40200752"><sup class="footnote">[113]</sup></a>
+else that we want to use in these film clips.</span>”</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Great! Go
+for it.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48402192" class="footnote" name="idp48402192"><sup class="footnote">[113]</sup></a>
</p><p>
The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what
clearing those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips. We made
some artistic decisions about what film clips to include—of
-course we were going to use the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my day</span>»</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
+course we were going to use the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Make my day</span>”</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's wiggling
under the gun and you need to get his permission. And then you have
to decide what you are going to pay him.
glass—is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And then we just,
we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we just
started calling people.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0208464"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8409904"></a><p>
Some actors were glad to help—Donald Sutherland, for example,
followed up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.
Others were dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you
-know, $1,200?</span>»</span> And they would say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love
-to get $1,200.</span>»</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you
+know, $1,200?</span>”</span> And they would say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love
+to get $1,200.</span>”</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged
ex-wives, in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had
cleared the rights to this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's
career.
</p><p>
-It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">and even then we
-weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>»</span>
+It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">and even then we
+weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and
the only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive
project for the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their
-hands and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's
+hands and said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's
the music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
-actors.</span>»</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
-constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
-directors, … this many musicians,</span>»</span> and we just went at it very
+actors.</span>”</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
+constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
+directors, … this many musicians,</span>”</span> and we just went at it very
systematically and cleared the rights.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood
loved it, and it sold very well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0216528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8417968"></a><p>
But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to
take a year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done
-this efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
+this efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">There is
nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done
-at all.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp40218128" class="footnote" name="idp40218128"><sup class="footnote">[114]</sup></a>
+at all.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48419568" class="footnote" name="idp48419568"><sup class="footnote">[114]</sup></a>
Did it make sense, I asked Alben, that this is the way a new work
has to be made?
</p><p>
-For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">very few … have the time and resources,
-and the will to do this,</span>»</span> and thus, very few such works would ever be
+For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">very few … have the time and resources,
+and the will to do this,</span>”</span> and thus, very few such works would ever be
made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of what
anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally, that
you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
product hard to get off the ground. If you knew I have a hundred
minutes of film in this product and it's going to cost me X, then you
build your budget around it, and you can get investments and
-everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, I
+everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Oh, I
want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going
to cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
-money,</span>»</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things together.
+money,</span>”</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things together.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access
that the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a
year, how long would it take someone else? And how much creativity is
never made just because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0227296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40228464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8428736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48429904"></a><p>
These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a
Republican hat for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government
defines the scope of these rights, and the scope defined determines
These rights might well have once made sense; but as circumstances
change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a well-trained,
regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and ask,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0231824"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8432656"></a><p>
I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only
a few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I
twentieth century, all framed around the idea of a <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode.
The execution was perfect, down to the sixty-minute stopwatch. The
judges loved every minute of it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0235296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8436064"></a><p>
When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David
Nimmer, perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the
nation. He had an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the
room of over 250 well-entertained judges. Taking an ominous tone, he
-began his talk with a question: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you know how many federal laws
-were just violated in this room?</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40237536"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40238352"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40239168"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40240272"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40241104"></a>
+began his talk with a question: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Do you know how many federal laws
+were just violated in this room?</span>”</span>
+</p><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48438304"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48439120"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48439936"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48441040"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48441872"></a>
For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this
film hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the
rights to these clips; technically, what they had done violated the
enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
couldn't easily do them legally.
</p><p>
-We live in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> culture enabled by technology. Anyone
+We live in a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>”</span> culture enabled by technology. Anyone
building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom that the cut
and paste architecture of the Internet created—in a second you can
find just about any image you want; in another second, you can have it
planted in your presentation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0243600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8444368"></a><p>
But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and
its archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound
through the mixing of Flash! and music.
</p><p>
All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators
-wanted to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal,</span>»</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
+wanted to be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">legal,</span>”</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is
never made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the
clearance rules, it doesn't get released.
To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of
rights so that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add
or mix as they see fit. We could even make this change without
-necessarily requiring that the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> use be free as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free beer.</span>»</span>
+necessarily requiring that the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> use be free as in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free beer.</span>”</span>
Instead, the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators
to compensate artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come
-along: a rule, for example, that says <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright
+along: a rule, for example, that says <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright
owner of an unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work
will be a flat 1 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the
-copyright owner.</span>»</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit
+copyright owner.</span>”</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit
from some royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full
property right (meaning the right to name his own price) unless he
registers the work.
<em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and
Austin Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works
-would work together to form a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>»</span> Under the
-agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
+would work together to form a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>”</span> Under the
+agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
picture hits and classics, write new storylines and—with the use
of stateof-the-art digital technology—insert Myers and other
actors into the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of
-entertainment.</span>»</span>
+entertainment.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-The announcement called this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>»</span> As Myers explained,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin on existing
+The announcement called this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>”</span> As Myers explained,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin on existing
films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able
-to take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg is
-quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
-new audiences, it is Mike.</span>»</span>
+to take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>”</span> Steven Spielberg is
+quoted as saying, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
+new audiences, it is Mike.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if
you don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point
privilege reserved for the funny and famous—and presumably rich.
</p><p>
This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
-continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span>
-Much of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> should be considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> But few would
+continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use.</span>”</span>
+Much of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sampling</span>”</span> should be considered <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use.</span>”</span> But few would
rely upon so weak a doctrine to create. That leads to the second reason
that the privilege is reserved for the few: The costs of negotiating the
legal rights for the creative reuse of content are astronomically high.
so you don't have to rely upon fair use rights. Either way, the creative
process is a process of paying lawyers—again a privilege, or perhaps a
curse, reserved for the few.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp40200752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40200752" class="para"><sup class="para">[113] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp48402192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48402192" class="para"><sup class="para">[113] </sup></a>
Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
publicity—rights an artist has to control the commercial
-exploitation of his image. But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
-Burn</span>»</span> creativity, as this chapter evinces.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40202352"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40203472"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40218128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40218128" class="para"><sup class="para">[114] </sup></a>
+exploitation of his image. But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
+Burn</span>”</span> creativity, as this chapter evinces.
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48403792"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48404912"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48419568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48419568" class="para"><sup class="para">[114] </sup></a>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management, <em class="citetitle">Seven
Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition</em>, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. Chapter Nine: Collectors</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0262208"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. Chapter Nine: Collectors</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8462992"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In April 1996</strong></span>, millions of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>—computer codes designed to
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bots</span>”</span>—computer codes designed to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">spider,</span>”</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
content—began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots
copied Internet-based information onto a small set of computers
located in a basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots
finished the whole of the Internet, they started again. Over and over
again, once every two months, these bits of code took copies of the
Internet and stored them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0265520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8466720"></a><p>
By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of
copies. And at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the
archive that these copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to
-the world. Using a technology called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>»</span> you could
+the world. Using a technology called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>”</span> you could
enter a Web page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as
well as when those pages changed.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
the same as the content you read before. The page may seem the same,
but the content could easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's
library—constantly updated, without any reliable memory.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0271232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40273040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8472432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48474240"></a><p>
Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and
the Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet
was. You have the power to see what you remember. More importantly,
perhaps, you also have the power to find what you don't remember and
-what others might prefer you forget.<a href="#ftn.idp40274432" class="footnote" name="idp40274432"><sup class="footnote">[115]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0278992"></a><p>
+what others might prefer you forget.<a href="#ftn.idp48475632" class="footnote" name="idp48475632"><sup class="footnote">[115]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8480192"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can
go back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If
you wanted to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the
Internet Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew
Carnegie of the Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10
billion pages, and it was growing at about a billion pages a month.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0286384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40287200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40288016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40288832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40289648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8487584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48488400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48489216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48490032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48490848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in
-human history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty
-terabytes of material</span>»</span>—and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the
-Library of Congress.</span>»</span> And this was just the first of the archives that
+human history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty
+terabytes of material</span>”</span>—and was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ten times larger than the
+Library of Congress.</span>”</span> And this was just the first of the archives that
Kahle set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has
been constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is
even more ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century
that culture is available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news
are recorded each evening by Vanderbilt University—thanks to a
specific exemption in the copyright law. That content is indexed, and
-is available to scholars for a very low fee. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But other than that,
-[television] is almost unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were
+is available to scholars for a very low fee. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But other than that,
+[television] is almost unavailable,</span>”</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If you were
Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are
-just a graduate student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0295600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40296416"></a><p>
+just a graduate student?</span>”</span> As Kahle put it,
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8496816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48497632"></a><p>
Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown?
Remember that back and forth surreal experience of a politician
interacting with a fictional television character? If you were a
<em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out after it … it would be almost
impossible. … Those materials are almost unfindable. …
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0298992"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8500160"></a><p>
Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded
in newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is
recorded on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world
of knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around
once the copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the
work.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0301616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40302432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8502784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48503600"></a><p>
These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library
of Congress made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so
long as such deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to
borrow back the deposits—for an unlimited time at no cost. In
-1915 alone, there were more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed
-back.</span>»</span> Thus, when the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy
+1915 alone, there were more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">borrowed
+back.</span>”</span> Thus, when the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy
held by any library. The copy exists—if it exists at
-all—in the library archive of the film company.<a href="#ftn.idp40304656" class="footnote" name="idp40304656"><sup class="footnote">[116]</sup></a>
+all—in the library archive of the film company.<a href="#ftn.idp48505824" class="footnote" name="idp48505824"><sup class="footnote">[116]</sup></a>
</p><p>
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts
were originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the
-broadcasts, so there was no fear of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft.</span>»</span> But as technology enabled
+broadcasts, so there was no fear of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">theft.</span>”</span> But as technology enabled
capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law
required they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>»</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>”</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't
demand them. The content of this part of American culture is
practically invisible to anyone who would look.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0309152"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8510320"></a><p>
Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and
his allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty
their coverage during the week of September 11 available free on-line.
Anyone could see how news reports from around the world covered the
events of that day.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0311120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40311904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40313008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40314208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40315312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40316128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40316944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40317760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8512288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48513072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48514176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48515440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48516544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48517360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48518176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48518992"></a><p>
Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
-archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span> (meaning
+archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>”</span> (meaning
films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never copyrighted),
Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle digitize
1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to be
material they wanted to use. Some downloaded that material and made
films on their own. Others purchased copies to enable other films to
be made. Either way, the archive enabled access to this important
-part of our culture. Want to see a copy of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>»</span> film
+part of our culture. Want to see a copy of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>”</span> film
that instructed children how to save themselves in the middle of
nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can download the film in a
few minutes—for free.
has—a noncommercial life.
</p><p>
For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit
-of creative property goes through different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> In its first
+of creative property goes through different <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lives.</span>”</span> In its first
life, if the
build an archive of knowledge about our history. In this second life,
the content can continue to inform even if that information is no
longer sold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0324832"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8526064"></a><p>
The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print
-very quickly (the average today is after about a year<a href="#ftn.idp40326304" class="footnote" name="idp40326304"><sup class="footnote">[117]</sup></a>). After
+very quickly (the average today is after about a year<a href="#ftn.idp48527536" class="footnote" name="idp48527536"><sup class="footnote">[117]</sup></a>). After
it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores without the
copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where many
get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries
before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but
we are for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As
Kahle describes,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0335520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40336592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40337696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40338816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40339920"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8536752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48537824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48538928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48540048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48541152"></a><p>
It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of
movies, … and about one to two million movies [distributed] during
… thrilling. It could be one of the things humankind would be most
proud of. Up there with the Library of Alexandria, putting a man on
the moon, and the invention of the printing press.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0342352"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8543584"></a><p>
Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the
</p><p>
Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to
-call these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">archives,</span>»</span> as warm as the idea of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">library</span>»</span> might seem,
-the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is collected in these digital spaces is also
-someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> And the law of property restricts the freedoms
+call these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">archives,</span>”</span> as warm as the idea of a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">library</span>”</span> might seem,
+the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">content</span>”</span> that is collected in these digital spaces is also
+someone's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> And the law of property restricts the freedoms
that Kahle and others would exercise.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp40347872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40349184"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp40274432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40274432" class="para"><sup class="para">[115] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp48549104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48550416"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp48475632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48475632" class="para"><sup class="para">[115] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40275168"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40275952"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40276768"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48476368"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48477152"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48477968"></a>
The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White
House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
-press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> That was
-later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq
-Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40304656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40304656" class="para"><sup class="para">[116] </sup></a>
+press release stated, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>”</span> That was
+later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq
+Have Ended.</span>”</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48505824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48505824" class="para"><sup class="para">[116] </sup></a>
-Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
-the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2–3
+Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
+the Library of Congress,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2–3
(1980): 5; Anthony Slide, <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film
Preservation in the United States</em> (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &
Co., 1992), 36.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40326304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40326304" class="para"><sup class="para">[117] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48527536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48527536" class="para"><sup class="para">[117] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40327040"></a>
-Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
-Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>,
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48528272"></a>
+Dave Barns, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
+Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>,
5 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927
and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: <span class="quote">
«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp40352624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40353440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvalentijackbackgroundof"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">Property</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp48553744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48554560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvalentijackbackgroundof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> has been the president
of the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came
to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his almost forty years of
running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as perhaps the most
prominent and effective lobbyist in Washington.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0357136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40358560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40359344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40360160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40360976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40361808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40362624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8558208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48559632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48560416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48561232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48562048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48562880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48563696"></a><p>
The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal
was to defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.
speech-regulating harm. But there is an aspect to the organization's
mission that is both the most radical and the most important. This is
the organization's effort, epitomized in Valenti's every act, to
-redefine the meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span>
+redefine the meaning of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy
perfectly:
owners must be accorded the same rights and protection resident in all
other property owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.
That is the question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire
-hearing and the debates to follow must rest.<a href="#ftn.idp40369024" class="footnote" name="idp40369024"><sup class="footnote">[118]</sup></a>
+hearing and the debates to follow must rest.<a href="#ftn.idp48570096" class="footnote" name="idp48570096"><sup class="footnote">[118]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">central theme</span>»</span> to which <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reasonable men and women</span>»</span> will return is
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">central theme</span>”</span> to which <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">reasonable men and women</span>”</span> will return is
this:
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be accorded the same rights and
-protections resident in all other property owners in the nation.</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be accorded the same rights and
+protections resident in all other property owners in the nation.</span>”</span>
There are no second-class citizens, Valenti might have
continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
</p><p>
extreme a claim made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in
this debate than this claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet
and however brilliant, is perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when
-it comes to the nature and scope of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> His views
+it comes to the nature and scope of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property.</span>”</span> His views
have <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal
tradition, even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly
redefined that tradition, at least in Washington.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0375168"></a><p>
-While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in a nerdy and
-precise sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<a href="#ftn.idp40377728" class="footnote" name="idp40377728"><sup class="footnote">[119]</sup></a> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and
-protection resident in all other property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8576240"></a><p>
+While <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> is certainly <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> in a nerdy and
+precise sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<a href="#ftn.idp48578864" class="footnote" name="idp48578864"><sup class="footnote">[119]</sup></a> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>”</span> have been <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and
+protection resident in all other property owners.</span>”</span> Indeed, if creative
property owners were given the same rights as all other property
owners, that would effect a radical, and radically undesirable, change
in our tradition.
something fundamentally wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no
further than the United States Constitution itself.
</p><p>
-The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> Indeed, so strongly
+The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> Indeed, so strongly
did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
important requirement. If the government takes your property—if
it condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your
-farm—it is required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takings
-Clause,</span>»</span> to pay you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for that taking. The
+farm—it is required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Takings
+Clause,</span>”</span> to pay you <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">just compensation</span>”</span> for that taking. The
Constitution thus guarantees that property is, in a certain sense,
sacred. It cannot <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property
owner unless the government pays for the privilege.
</p><p>
Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what
-Valenti calls <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> In the clause granting Congress the
-power to create <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> the Constitution
-<span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited time,</span>»</span> Congress
-take back the rights that it has granted and set the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
-property</span>»</span> free to the public domain. Yet when Congress does this, when
-the expiration of a copyright term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">takes</span>»</span> your copyright and turns it
+Valenti calls <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property.</span>”</span> In the clause granting Congress the
+power to create <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property,</span>”</span> the Constitution
+<span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited time,</span>”</span> Congress
+take back the rights that it has granted and set the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative
+property</span>”</span> free to the public domain. Yet when Congress does this, when
+the expiration of a copyright term <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">takes</span>”</span> your copyright and turns it
over to the public domain, Congress does not have any obligation to
-pay <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking.</span>»</span> Instead, the same
+pay <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">just compensation</span>”</span> for this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking.</span>”</span> Instead, the same
Constitution that requires compensation for your land
-requires that you lose your <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> right without any
+requires that you lose your <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> right without any
compensation at all.
</p><p>
The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of
creative property be given the same rights as all other property? Why
did they require that for creative property there must be a public
domain?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0398912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8600160"></a><p>
To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the
-history of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
+history of these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> rights, and the control that they
enabled. Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that
should be at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> artists should be paid,
but whether institutions designed to assure that artists get paid need
also control how culture develops.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0402944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40403760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreeculturefourmodalitiesofconstrainton"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationfourmodalitiesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasexpostregulationmodality"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8604192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48605008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreeculturefourmodalitiesofconstrainton"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationfourmodalitiesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasexpostregulationmodality"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality"></a><p>
To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about
perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks
how four different modalities of regulation interact to support or
weaken the right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
45%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp40415952"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp48617456"></a><p>
At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or
group that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In
each case throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as
with a $150,000 fine. The fine is an ex post punishment for violating
an ex ante rule. It is imposed by the state.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40418288"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0419168"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48619792"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8620672"></a><p>
Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an
individual for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is
imposed by a community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be
sold. But given a set of norms, and a background of property and
contract law, the market imposes a simultaneous constraint upon how an
individual or group might behave.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0422768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8624208"></a><p>
Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>—the physical world as one finds it—is a
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">architecture</span>”</span>—the physical world as one finds it—is a
constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your ability
to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability of
a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects
its constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are
imposed not by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing
-theft, but by nature, by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture.</span>»</span> If a 500-pound boulder
+theft, but by nature, by <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">architecture.</span>”</span> If a 500-pound boulder
blocks your way, it is the law of gravity that enforces this
constraint. If a $500 airplane ticket stands between you and a flight
to New York, it is the market that enforces this constraint.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0426400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40427728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40429056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8627840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48629168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48630496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is
be; my claim is not about comprehensiveness), these four are among the
most significant, and any regulator (whether controlling or freeing)
must consider how these four in particular interact.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0433840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40434656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40435472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></a><p>
-So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a high
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8635472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48636288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48637104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></a><p>
+So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">freedom</span>”</span> to drive a car at a high
speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular
times. It is in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for
</p><p>
The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear:
While these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a
-special role in affecting the three.<a href="#ftn.idp40441408" class="footnote" name="idp40441408"><sup class="footnote">[120]</sup></a>
+special role in affecting the three.<a href="#ftn.idp48643088" class="footnote" name="idp48643088"><sup class="footnote">[120]</sup></a>
The law, in other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease
the constraint of a particular modality. Thus, the law might be used
to increase taxes on gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to
strict—a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
limit, for example—so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
driving.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0445920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40447184"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="45%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1361.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp40450912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8647600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48648864"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="150"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1361.svg" align="middle" width="150"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp48652496"></a><p>
These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To
understand the effective protection of liberty or protection of
property at any particular moment, we must track these changes over
time. A restriction imposed by one modality might be erased by
another. A freedom enabled by one modality might be displaced by
-another.<a href="#ftn.idp40452368" class="footnote" name="idp40452368"><sup class="footnote">[121]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0461936"></a><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Why Hollywood Is Right</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><p>
+another.<a href="#ftn.idp48653952" class="footnote" name="idp48653952"><sup class="footnote">[121]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8663568"></a><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Why Hollywood Is Right</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><p>
The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just
how, Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress
and the courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that
</p><p>
Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the
Internet:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.3. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
45%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40471296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.3. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48673104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on
uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but the norms
of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
this form of infringement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0477264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40478400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40479216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8678992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48680128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48680944"></a><p>
Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and
p2p sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically,
as does the constraint of the market. And as both the market and
architecture relax the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The
happy balance (for the warriors, at least) of life before the Internet
becomes an effective state of anarchy after the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0480832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40482144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40483472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8682560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48683872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48685200"></a><p>
Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this
change, when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance
after the fall of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the
looting that results.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.4. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
45%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1381.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp40487936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.4. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1381.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp48689696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
-warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
+warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">White Paper</span>”</span> prepared by the Commerce
Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995,
this mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the
strategy to respond already mapped. In response to the changes the
innovative marketing techniques, (3) technologists should push to
develop code to protect copyrighted material, and (4) educators should
educate kids to better protect copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0492240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40493616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40494944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40495760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8693888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48695200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48696528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48697344"></a><p>
This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to
preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced
by the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content
to bail them out when a virus (architecture) devastates their
crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to the government to bail
them out when imports (market) wipe out the U.S. steel industry.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0498128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40499376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40500768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8699776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48701024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48702352"></a><p>
Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's
campaign to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a
technological innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that
the changing technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect
on the content industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely
-Brown describes it, its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0502784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40503600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40504704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40505520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40506336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40507152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40507968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40508784"></a><p>
+Brown describes it, its <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8704368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48705184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48706288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48707104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48707920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48708736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48709552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48710368"></a><p>
But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because
technology has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't
follow that the government should intervene to support that old way of
doing business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20
percent of their traditional film market to the emerging technologies
-of digital cameras.<a href="#ftn.idp40510304" class="footnote" name="idp40510304"><sup class="footnote">[122]</sup></a>
+of digital cameras.<a href="#ftn.idp48711888" class="footnote" name="idp48711888"><sup class="footnote">[122]</sup></a>
Does anyone believe the government should ban digital cameras just to
support Kodak? Highways have weakened the freight business for
railroads. Does anyone think we should ban trucks from roads
<span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the railroads?
Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
-weakened the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stickiness</span>»</span> of television advertising (if a boring
+weakened the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stickiness</span>”</span> of television advertising (if a boring
commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf), and it
may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to
reinforce commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function
only once a second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0516880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40517696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40518512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40519616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40520432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40521248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8718528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48719344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48720160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48721264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48722080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48722896"></a><p>
The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.
In a free society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and
free trade, the government's role is not to support one way of doing
business against others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect
them against loss. If the government did this generally, then we would
never have any progress. As Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in
-1991, in a memo criticizing software patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies
-have an interest in excluding future competitors.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp40523440" class="footnote" name="idp40523440"><sup class="footnote">[123]</sup></a>
+1991, in a memo criticizing software patents, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">established companies
+have an interest in excluding future competitors.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp48725088" class="footnote" name="idp48725088"><sup class="footnote">[123]</sup></a>
And relative to a
startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and
FM radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight
changes they create, in response to the request of those hurt by
changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and
opportunities for innovation and change.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0526192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40527264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40528080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8727840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48728912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48729728"></a><p>
In the context of laws regulating speech—which include,
obviously, copyright law—that duty is even stronger. When the
industry complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to
should be especially wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for
the government to get into the business of regulating speech
markets. The risks and dangers of that game are precisely why our
-framers created the First Amendment to our Constitution: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Congress
-shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.</span>»</span> So when
-Congress is being asked to pass laws that would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom
+framers created the First Amendment to our Constitution: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Congress
+shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.</span>”</span> So when
+Congress is being asked to pass laws that would <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">abridge</span>”</span> the freedom
of speech, it should ask— carefully—whether such
regulation is justified.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0531328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40532560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8732976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48734208"></a><p>
My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether
the changes that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">justified.</span>»</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we get to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">justified.</span>”</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we get to
the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the
effect of the changes the content industry wants.
No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0543872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40544688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8745456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48746272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></a><p>
But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>, which argued that
DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having unintended
environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
problems DDT caused were worse than the problems it solved, at least
when considering the other, more environmentally friendly ways to
solve the problems that DDT was meant to solve.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0549248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40550496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8750768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48752016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James
-Boyle appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
-culture.<a href="#ftn.idp40554144" class="footnote" name="idp40554144"><sup class="footnote">[124]</sup></a>
+Boyle appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>”</span> for
+culture.<a href="#ftn.idp48755680" class="footnote" name="idp48755680"><sup class="footnote">[124]</sup></a>
His point, and the point I want to develop in the balance of this
chapter, is not that the aims of copyright are flawed. Or that authors
should not be paid for their work. Or that music should be given away
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that some of the ways in which we might
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">for free.</span>”</span> The point is that some of the ways in which we might
protect authors will have unintended consequences for the cultural
environment, much like DDT had for the natural environment. And just
protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack on
authors. It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we
should be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0557504"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8759040"></a><p>
My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly
this effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic
effect on the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But
not be only that copyrighted work is effectively protected. Also, and
generally missed, the net effect of this massive increase in protection
will be devastating to the environment for creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0559808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8761280"></a><p>
In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences
for free culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will
be lost.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0561776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40563088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40564528"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Beginnings</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp40566928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40571904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40572976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40577584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8763248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48764560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48765936"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Beginnings</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp48768400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48773216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48774288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48778848"></a><p>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
-English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
-property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
+English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative
+property</span>”</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusinconstitutionalprogressclause"></a><p>
-The power to establish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights is granted to
+The power to establish <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> rights is granted to
Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very
odd. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-We can call this the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>»</span> for notice what this clause
+We can call this the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>”</span> for notice what this clause
does not say. It does not say Congress has the power to grant
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property rights.</span>»</span> It says that Congress has the power
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property rights.</span>”</span> It says that Congress has the power
<span class="emphasis"><em>to promote progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its
purpose, and its purpose is a public one, not the purpose of enriching
publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0586016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8787280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw
in chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Chapter 6. Chapter Six: Founders">6</a>,
the English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few
disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers
followed the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the
English, the framers reinforced that objective, by requiring that
-copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to Authors</span>»</span> only.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0593216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40594032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40595152"></a><p>
+copyrights extend <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to Authors</span>”</span> only.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8794608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48795424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48796544"></a><p>
The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers
built structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they
case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built checks and balances into
the constitutional frame, structured to prevent otherwise inevitable
concentrations of power.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0597696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40598944"></a><p>
-I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8798976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48800256"></a><p>
+I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span>
today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they ever
considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need to put our
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has changed in the 210
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> in context: We need to see how it has changed in the 210
years since they first struck its design.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0601696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40603136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40604512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40605840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8803024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48804464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48805776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48807104"></a><p>
Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes
in technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a
particular concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we
started here:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.5. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
45%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.5. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
We will end here:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.6. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
45%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1442.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.6. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1442.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Let me explain how.
-</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Law: Duration</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0620336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Law: Duration</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8821360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it
faced the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that
the English had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws
protecting creative property, and some believed that these laws simply
supplemented common law rights that already protected creative
-authorship.<a href="#ftn.idp40623936" class="footnote" name="idp40623936"><sup class="footnote">[125]</sup></a>
+authorship.<a href="#ftn.idp48824944" class="footnote" name="idp48824944"><sup class="footnote">[125]</sup></a>
This meant that there was no guaranteed public domain in the United
States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the common law, then
there was no simple way to know whether a work published in the United
States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public
domain to reprint and distribute works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0628096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8829104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law,
federal protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law
the author was alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could
opt to renew the copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not
renew the copyright, his work passed into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0634192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8835088"></a><p>
While there were many works created in the United States in the first
ten years of the Republic, only 5 percent of the works were actually
registered under the federal copyright regime. Of all the work created
in the United States both before 1790 and from 1790 through 1800, 95
percent immediately passed into the public domain; the balance would
pass into the pubic domain within twenty-eight years at most, and more
-likely within fourteen years.<a href="#ftn.idp40636192" class="footnote" name="idp40636192"><sup class="footnote">[126]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0640368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40641648"></a><p>
+likely within fourteen years.<a href="#ftn.idp48837152" class="footnote" name="idp48837152"><sup class="footnote">[126]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8841328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48842544"></a><p>
This system of renewal was a crucial part of the American system
of copyright. It assured that the maximum terms of copyright would be
copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small
minority of them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the
balance allowed their work to pass into the public
-domain.<a href="#ftn.idp40644592" class="footnote" name="idp40644592"><sup class="footnote">[127]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0647760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40649024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40650128"></a><p>
+domain.<a href="#ftn.idp48845488" class="footnote" name="idp48845488"><sup class="footnote">[127]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8848656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48849984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48851088"></a><p>
Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work
has an actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall
-out of print after one year.<a href="#ftn.idp40651664" class="footnote" name="idp40651664"><sup class="footnote">[128]</sup></a> When that happens, the
+out of print after one year.<a href="#ftn.idp48852624" class="footnote" name="idp48852624"><sup class="footnote">[128]</sup></a> When that happens, the
used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the books are
no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time
from 14 years to 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic,
the term increased once again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal
term of 14 years to 28 years, setting a maximum term of 56 years.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0659936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8860848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress
has extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty
In 1976, Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.
And in 1998, in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress
extended the term of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0665520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8866400"></a><p>
The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing
of works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the
public domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five
after the Sonny Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the
public domain, zero copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue
of the expiration of a copyright term.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0667840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8868720"></a><p>
The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the
framers established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright
would pass more quickly into the public domain. The works remaining
under protection would be those that had some continuing commercial
value.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0670624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40671408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40672528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8870944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48871728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48872848"></a><p>
The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For
all works created after 1978, there was only one copyright term—the
-maximum term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
+maximum term. For <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">natural</span>”</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created
before 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the
domain. And indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is
even possible to put works into the public domain. The public domain
is orphaned by these changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement
-that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit
+that terms be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited,</span>”</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit
them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0676208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40677600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8876528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48877856"></a><p>
The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to
renew their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright
in 1973 was just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal
requirement, the average term of copyright is now the maximum term.
In thirty years, then, the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95
-years.<a href="#ftn.idp40679696" class="footnote" name="idp40679696"><sup class="footnote">[129]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0681360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40682608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40684000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40685344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40686624"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Law: Scope</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
-The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law.
+years.<a href="#ftn.idp48879888" class="footnote" name="idp48879888"><sup class="footnote">[129]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8881552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48882800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48884192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48885536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48886880"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Law: Scope</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
+The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">scope</span>”</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law.
The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent
of the changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0692304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><p>
-In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
-charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8892688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><p>
+In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">maps,
+charts, and books.</span>”</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave
-the author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> copyrighted works. That
+the author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">publish</span>”</span> copyrighted works. That
means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the
work without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted
by a copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right
-did not extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> It would not,
+did not extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>”</span> It would not,
therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
(such as a drama based on a published book).
right covers practically any creative work that is reduced to a
tangible form. It covers music as well as architecture, drama as well
as computer programs. It gives the copyright owner of that creative
-work not only the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> the work, but also the
-exclusive right of control over any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> of that work. And most
+work not only the exclusive right to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">publish</span>”</span> the work, but also the
+exclusive right of control over any <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies</span>”</span> of that work. And most
significant for our purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner
control over not only his or her particular work, but also any
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative work</span>»</span> that might grow out of the original work. In this
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">derivative work</span>”</span> that might grow out of the original work. In this
way, the right covers more creative work, protects the creative work
more broadly, and protects works that are based in a significant way
on the initial creative work.
of the history of American copyright law, there was a requirement that
works be deposited with the government before a copyright could be
secured.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0707600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8907712"></a><p>
The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible
understanding that for most works, no copyright was required. Again,
in the first ten years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible
that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the
original author.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0709376"></a><p>
-All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American system when
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8909424"></a><p>
+All of these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">formalities</span>”</span> were abolished in the American system when
we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no requirement
that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now is
automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with
a ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a
copy available for others to copy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0712592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40714240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40715488"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8912704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48914288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48915536"></a><p>
Consider a practical example to understand the scope of these
differences.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact2"></a><p>
against another publisher's taking your book and republishing it
without your permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers
so as to prevent that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were
-174 publishers in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp40719408" class="footnote" name="idp40719408"><sup class="footnote">[130]</sup></a>
+174 publishers in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp48919456" class="footnote" name="idp48919456"><sup class="footnote">[130]</sup></a>
The Copyright Act was thus a tiny
regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative market in
the United States—publishers.
those activities were regulated by the original copyright act. These
creative activities remained free, while the activities of publishers
were restrained.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0728448"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8928464"></a><p>
Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail,
every note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span>
That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would
control
competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of
-today that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative
-rights.</span>»</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
+today that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">derivative
+rights.</span>”</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All
of these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the
exclusive
right to your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings
and a large proportion of the writings inspired by them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0733008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8933088"></a><p>
It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our
framers, though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this
expansion
<span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone else's work
is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
all—they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should
-not protect derivative rights at all.<a href="#ftn.idp40736528" class="footnote" name="idp40736528"><sup class="footnote">[131]</sup></a>
+not protect derivative rights at all.<a href="#ftn.idp48936544" class="footnote" name="idp48936544"><sup class="footnote">[131]</sup></a>
Whether or not you go that far, it seems
plain that whatever wrong is involved is fundamentally different from
the wrong of direct piracy.
Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I
can go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I
can go to court and get an injunction against your transformative use
-of my book.<a href="#ftn.idp40740752" class="footnote" name="idp40740752"><sup class="footnote">[132]</sup></a>
+of my book.<a href="#ftn.idp48940768" class="footnote" name="idp48940768"><sup class="footnote">[132]</sup></a>
These two different uses of my creative work are treated the same.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0744080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40745408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40746224"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8944240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48945632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48946448"></a><p>
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should
you be able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from
it without paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature
-called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>»</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
+called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>”</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally
created?
</p><p>
derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower:
simply to make clear that this expansion is a significant change from
the rights originally granted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0748848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40750048"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Law and Architecture: Reach</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8949072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48950272"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Law and Architecture: Reach</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users,
and authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making
-copies, and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<a href="#ftn.idp40756928" class="footnote" name="idp40756928"><sup class="footnote">[133]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0760784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
+copies, and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<a href="#ftn.idp48957232" class="footnote" name="idp48957232"><sup class="footnote">[133]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8961088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copies.</span>”</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
<span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack
-Valenti's argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
-property</span>»</span> deserves the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">same rights</span>»</span> as all other property, it is the
+Valenti's argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative
+property</span>”</span> deserves the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">same rights</span>”</span> as all other property, it is the
<span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful
about. For while it may be obvious that in the world before the
Internet, copies were the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon
copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> be the trigger for copyright
law. More precisely, they should not <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be
the trigger for copyright law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0768016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8968208"></a><p>
This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this
very slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the
Internet should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which
-the law of copyright automatically applies,<a href="#ftn.idp40769936" class="footnote" name="idp40769936"><sup class="footnote">[134]</sup></a>
+the law of copyright automatically applies,<a href="#ftn.idp48970128" class="footnote" name="idp48970128"><sup class="footnote">[134]</sup></a>
because it is clear that the
current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen,
by the legislators who enacted copyright law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0771392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40772624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8971584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48972816"></a><p>
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely
empty circle.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.7. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
40%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1521.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksthreetypesofusesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightapplicabilityalteredbytechnologyof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtechnologycopyrightintentalteredby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs4"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.7. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1521.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksthreetypesofusesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightapplicabilityalteredbytechnologyof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtechnologycopyrightintentalteredby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs4"></a><p>
Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent
all its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are
sleep on the book or use it to hold up a lamp or let your puppy chew
it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright law, because those
acts do not make a copy.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.8. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
40%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1531.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.8. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1531.png" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated
by copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It
is therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands
at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see
diagram in figure <a class="xref" href="#fig-1541" title="Figure 10.9. ">10.9</a>).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0794816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40796112"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="40%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1541.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
8994544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp48995840"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1541.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><p>
Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses
-that remain unregulated because the law considers these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0804608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40805680"></a><p>
+that remain unregulated because the law considers these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9004288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49005360"></a><p>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law
treats as unregulated because public policy demands that they remain
unregulated. You are free to quote from this book, even in a review
that is quite negative, without my permission, even though that
quoting makes a copy. That copy would ordinarily give the copyright
owner the exclusive right to say whether the copy is allowed or not,
-but the law denies the owner any exclusive right over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span>
+but the law denies the owner any exclusive right over such <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair uses</span>”</span>
for public policy (and possibly First Amendment) reasons.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.10. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
40%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1542.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.10. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1542.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto"></a><p>
In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
-are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright owner's views.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0813408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40818464"></a><p>
+are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair</span>”</span> regardless of the copyright owner's views.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9013168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49018160"></a><p>
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use
-of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<a href="#ftn.idp40820016" class="footnote" name="idp40820016"><sup class="footnote">[135]</sup></a>
+of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<a href="#ftn.idp49019712" class="footnote" name="idp49019712"><sup class="footnote">[135]</sup></a>
And because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a
digital network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses
that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
would defend the unregulated uses of copyrighted work must look
exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the burden of this
shift.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0821520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40823584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9021216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49023216"></a><p>
So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would
be no plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that
then whenever you read the book (or any portion of it) beyond the
fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to the
copyright owner's wish.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.11. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
40%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1551.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.11. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="
125"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1551.svg" align="middle" width="125"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim
just now is not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim
is only to make clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other
transformative uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand
the wrong in commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
<span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work
-using a machine. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> become
+using a machine. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>”</span> and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>”</span> become
crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification. However
troubling the expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it
Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary
-burden on category 3 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>) that fair use never before had to
+burden on category 3 (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span>) that fair use never before had to
bear. If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I
could read a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that
this is a violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been
copyright law and hence the need for a fair use defense. The right to
read was effectively protected before because reading was not
regulated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0846992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40848336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40849728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40851056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40852448"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9047168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49048512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49049840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49051168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49052496"></a><p>
This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for
free culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights
depend upon fair use—never even addressing the earlier question
<span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But when everything becomes
presumptively regulated, then the protections of fair use are not
enough.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0855200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40856480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40857680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40858928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40860176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40861568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40862912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9055248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49056528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49057792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49059040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49060352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49061680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49063024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was
-in the business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies available
+in the business of making <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">trailer</span>”</span> advertisements for movies available
to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way to sell
videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors, put
the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0870304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9070352"></a><p>
The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began
to think about the Internet as another way to distribute these
-previews. The idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span>
+previews. The idea was to expand their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>”</span>
technique by giving on-line stores the same ability to enable
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span> Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">browsing.</span>”</span> Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book
before you buy the book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit
from the movie on-line before you bought it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0874288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9074368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors
that it intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet
(rather than sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two
films; he had customers who depended upon his delivering this
content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video Pipeline stopped the
distribution immediately. Video Pipeline thought it was within their
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as they had. So they filed a
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> rights to distribute the clips as they had. So they filed a
lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these rights were in fact
their rights.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0881168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40882416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40887696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9081584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49082832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49088112"></a><p>
Disney countersued—for $100 million in damages. Those damages
-were predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
-infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
+were predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">willfully
+infringed</span>”</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the
actual harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set
in the statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred
permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
Disney's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0890752"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9091168"></a><p>
Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts
would consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change
that gives Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't
really control how people got access to their content. Once a video
-was in the marketplace, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>»</span> would free the
+was in the marketplace, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>”</span> would free the
seller to use the video as he wished, including showing portions of it
in order to engender sales of the entire movie video. But with the
Internet, it becomes possible for Disney to centralize control over
copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the copyright owner's
control. The technology expands the scope of effective control,
because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0893152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40894400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40895712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40897104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40898496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40899872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40901216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40902032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40902848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9093568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49094816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49096128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49097456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49098848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49100224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49101568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49102384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49103200"></a><p>
No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for
control is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes & Noble has the
second important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0909776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40910864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9109568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49110656"></a><p>
In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.
The law, meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human,
trained in the tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that
tradition embraced, who said whether and how the law would restrict
your freedom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0912752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9112544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
There's a famous story about a battle between the Marx Brothers
and Warner Brothers. The Marxes intended to make a parody of
<em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers objected. They
wrote a nasty letter to the Marxes, warning them that there would be
serious legal consequences if they went forward with their
-plan.<a href="#ftn.idp40917920" class="footnote" name="idp40917920"><sup class="footnote">[136]</sup></a>
+plan.<a href="#ftn.idp49117728" class="footnote" name="idp49117728"><sup class="footnote">[136]</sup></a>
</p><p>
This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned
-Warner Brothers that the Marx Brothers <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">were brothers long before
-you were.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp40920512" class="footnote" name="idp40920512"><sup class="footnote">[137]</sup></a>
+Warner Brothers that the Marx Brothers <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">were brothers long before
+you were.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp49120320" class="footnote" name="idp49120320"><sup class="footnote">[137]</sup></a>
The Marx Brothers therefore owned the word
<em class="citetitle">brothers</em>, and if Warner Brothers insisted on
trying to control <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, then the Marx
problem with code regulations is that, unlike law, code has no
shame. Code would not get the humor of the Marx Brothers. The
consequence of that is not at all funny.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0929360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40930672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9129680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49130928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
Consider the life of my Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
An e-book is a book delivered in electronic form. An Adobe eBook is
print ten pages from the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the
permission to use the Read Aloud button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>
read aloud through the computer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0945744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40946560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9146160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49146976"></a><p>
Here's the e-book for another work in the public domain (including the
translation): Aristotle's <em class="citetitle">Politics</em>.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.14. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/aristotele-ebook.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted
at all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear
the book.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.15. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1622.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0953952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40954784"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.15. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1622.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9154368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49155200"></a><p>
Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the
original e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of
Ideas</em>:
No copying, no printing, and don't you dare try to listen to this book!
</p><p>
Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span>— as if the publisher has the power to control how
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permissions</span>”</span>— as if the publisher has the power to control how
you use these works. For works under copyright, the copyright owner
certainly does have the power—up to the limits of the copyright
law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
-power.<a href="#ftn.idp40960368" class="footnote" name="idp40960368"><sup class="footnote">[138]</sup></a>
+power.<a href="#ftn.idp49160784" class="footnote" name="idp49160784"><sup class="footnote">[138]</sup></a>
When my e-book of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the
permission to copy only ten text selections into the memory every ten
days, what that really means is that the eBook Reader has enabled the
control that the law would enable.
</p><p>
The control comes instead from the code—from the technology
-within which the e-book <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> Though the e-book says that these are
-permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> that most of us
-deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission</span>»</span> to stay out till
+within which the e-book <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lives.</span>”</span> Though the e-book says that these are
+permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permissions</span>”</span> that most of us
+deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permission</span>”</span> to stay out till
midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when
the Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies
aloud—it's not that the company will sue you if you do; instead,
if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine simply
won't read aloud.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0965472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40967184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9165888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49167600"></a><p>
These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a
world where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when
-you tried to type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from the
+you tried to type <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>”</span> erased <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Brothers</span>”</span> from the
sentence.
</p><p>
This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.17. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1641.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to
copy, not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read aloud</span>»</span>!
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permissions</span>”</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">read aloud</span>”</span>!
</p><p>
The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.
For the text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read
could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe agree that
such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer because
the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0983552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40984880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9184048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49185440"></a><p>
The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most
innovative companies developing strategies to balance open access to
content with incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's
technology enables control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this
control. That incentive is understandable, yet what it creates is
often crazy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
0986976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40988176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp40989488"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9187472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49188736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49190048"></a><p>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite
story of mine that makes the same point.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
-Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>»</span> The Aibo
+Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>”</span> The Aibo
learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity
and that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
</p><p>
and on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo
to do tricks in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute computers.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Teach</span>”</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute computers.
You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
differently. So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about
how to teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com
was giving information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack
-their computer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1000048"></a><p>
+their computer <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">dog</span>”</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9200544"></a><p>
If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
<em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in
term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the
program to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to
do. If you buy a new printer for an old computer, you might find the
-old computer doesn't run, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drive,</span>»</span> the printer. If you discovered
+old computer doesn't run, or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">drive,</span>”</span> the printer. If you discovered
that, you'd later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone
who has written a driver to enable the computer to drive the printer
you just bought.
dance jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever
bit of tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature
than Sony had built.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1005056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41006368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41007680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9205552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49206800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49208112"></a><p>
I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the
United States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience,
is it permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We
completely legal activity. One imagines that the owner of aibopet.com
thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could there be with teaching
a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1010832"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9211264"></a><p>
Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show—
not literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic
named Ed Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic
lawyers, Ed Felten stood his ground. He was not about to be bullied
into being silent about something he knew very well.
</p><p>
-But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<a href="#ftn.idp41013344" class="footnote" name="idp41013344"><sup class="footnote">[139]</sup></a>
+But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<a href="#ftn.idp49213776" class="footnote" name="idp49213776"><sup class="footnote">[139]</sup></a>
He and a group of colleagues were working on a paper to be submitted
at conference. The paper was intended to describe the weakness in an
encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
owners to exercise much better control over their content than the
Internet, as it originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI
hoped to develop a standard that would allow the content owner to say
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">this music cannot be copied,</span>»</span> and have a computer respect that
-command. The technology was to be part of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trusted system</span>»</span> of
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">this music cannot be copied,</span>”</span> and have a computer respect that
+command. The technology was to be part of a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">trusted system</span>”</span> of
control that would get content owners to trust the system of the
Internet much more.
</p><p>
Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent
AIBO-ware's copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the
anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1032992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41034304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41035552"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9233520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49234832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49236144"></a><p>
And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system
of encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter
from an RIAA lawyer that read:
Public Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by
the Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions
-under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
+under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">DMCA</span>”</span>).
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the
spread of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made
measures. It was designed to ban those devices, whether or not the use
of the copyrighted material made possible by that circumvention would
have been a copyright violation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1044256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41045072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41045888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9244848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49245664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49246480"></a><p>
Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to
dance jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted
suggested, Felten himself was distributing a circumvention technology.
Thus, even though he was not himself infringing anyone's copyright,
his academic paper was enabling others to infringe others' copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1049152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9249744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in
1981 by Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that
the VCR could be banned because it was a copyright-infringing
technology: It enabled consumers to copy films without the permission
of the copyright owner. No doubt there were uses of the technology
-that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span>
+that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka <span class="quote">“<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>”</span>
for example, had testified in that case that he wanted people to feel
free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41053184"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49253760"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>”</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that
it's a real service to families to be able to record such programs and
show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with the
advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>”</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>”</span>
because that's what I produce, that they then become much more active
in the programming of their family's television life. Very frankly, I
am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in
-broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You are an important person just the way
-you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe I'm going on too long,
+broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You are an important person just the way
+you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>”</span> Maybe I'm going on too long,
but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active
in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
-important.<a href="#ftn.idp41057200" class="footnote" name="idp41057200"><sup class="footnote">[140]</sup></a>
+important.<a href="#ftn.idp49257776" class="footnote" name="idp49257776"><sup class="footnote">[140]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were
This led Conrad to draw the cartoon in figure
<a class="xref" href="#fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig" title="Figure 10.18. — On which item have the courts ruled that manufacturers and retailers be held responsible for having supplied the equipment?">10.18</a>, which we can adopt to the
DMCA.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41064112"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49264688"></a>
</p><p>
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
</p><div class="figure-float" style="float: left;"><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.18. — On which item have the courts ruled that manufacturers and
practice or to protect against an intruder. At least some would say that
such a use would be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good
and bad uses.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1071584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9272048"></a><p>
The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world
where guns are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and
circumvention technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever
died from copyright circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention
technologies absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some
good, but permits guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1073584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41074896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41076208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41077024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41077840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9274048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49275360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49276608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49277424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49278240"></a><p>
The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are
changing the balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright
owners restrict fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would
gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of fan
fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then
-simply continue it.<a href="#ftn.idp41083888" class="footnote" name="idp41083888"><sup class="footnote">[141]</sup></a>
+simply continue it.<a href="#ftn.idp49284288" class="footnote" name="idp49284288"><sup class="footnote">[141]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated
activity. No matter what happened inside your club room, you would
never be interfered with by the copyright police. You were free in
that space to do as you wished with this part of our culture. You were
allowed to build on it as you wished without fear of legal control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1086608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9287008"></a><p>
But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would
</p><p>
These changes are of two sorts: the scope of concentration, and its
nature.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1094304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41095088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41095920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41096704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41097520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41098336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9294768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49295552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49296384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49297216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49298032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49298848"></a><p>
Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John
McCain summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media
-ownership, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media sources.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41099824" class="footnote" name="idp41099824"><sup class="footnote">[142]</sup></a>
+ownership, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media sources.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp49300336" class="footnote" name="idp49300336"><sup class="footnote">[142]</sup></a>
The five recording labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music
Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the
-U.S. music market.<a href="#ftn.idp41101040" class="footnote" name="idp41101040"><sup class="footnote">[143]</sup></a>
-The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
-programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers nationwide.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41103168" class="footnote" name="idp41103168"><sup class="footnote">[144]</sup></a>
+U.S. music market.<a href="#ftn.idp49301552" class="footnote" name="idp49301552"><sup class="footnote">[143]</sup></a>
+The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
+programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers nationwide.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp49303680" class="footnote" name="idp49303680"><sup class="footnote">[144]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxradioownershipconsolidationin"></a><p>
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation,
the nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
markets, the two largest broadcasters control 74 percent of that
market's revenues. Overall, just four companies control 90 percent of
the nation's radio advertising revenues.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1108576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewspapersownershipconsolidationof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9309072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewspapersownershipconsolidationof"></a><p>
Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well. Today,
there are six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than
there were eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the
of all cable revenue. This is a market far from the free press the
framers sought to protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well
protected— by the market.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1111520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9311968"></a><p>
Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious
change is in the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows
put it in a recent article about Rupert Murdoch,
through which the content reaches the customers. Murdoch's satellite
systems now distribute News Corp. content in Europe and Asia; if
Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that system will serve
-the same function in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp41114320" class="footnote" name="idp41114320"><sup class="footnote">[145]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1117632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41118976"></a><p>
+the same function in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp49314768" class="footnote" name="idp49314768"><sup class="footnote">[145]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9318080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49319424"></a><p>
The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not
just large companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies
owning as many outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this
</p><p>
Here's a representative story that begins to suggest how this
integration may matter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1125552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41126336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41127120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9325936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49326720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49327504"></a><p>
In 1969, Norman Lear created a pilot for <em class="citetitle">All in the Family</em>. He took
the pilot to ABC. The network didn't like it. It was too edgy, they told
Lear. Make it again. Lear made a second pilot, more edgy than the
Rather than comply, Lear simply took the show elsewhere. CBS
was happy to have the series; ABC could not stop Lear from walking.
The copyrights that Lear held assured an independence from network
-control.<a href="#ftn.idp41129552" class="footnote" name="idp41129552"><sup class="footnote">[146]</sup></a>
+control.<a href="#ftn.idp49329936" class="footnote" name="idp49329936"><sup class="footnote">[146]</sup></a>
</p><p>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independent</span>»</span> of the
+television—75 percent of it—was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">independent</span>”</span> of the
networks.
</p><p>
In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.
After that change, the networks quickly changed the balance. In 1985,
there were twenty-five independent television production studios; in
-2002, only five independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992,
+2002, only five independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In 1992,
only 15 percent of new series were produced for a network by a company
it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by
-controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16
+controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In 1992, 16
new series were produced independently of conglomerate control, last
-year there was one.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41136112" class="footnote" name="idp41136112"><sup class="footnote">[147]</sup></a>
+year there was one.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp49336496" class="footnote" name="idp49336496"><sup class="footnote">[147]</sup></a>
In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was owned by the networks
-that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number
+that ran it. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number
of prime time television hours per week produced by network studios
increased over 200%, whereas the number of prime time television hours
per week produced by independent studios decreased
-63%.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41138656" class="footnote" name="idp41138656"><sup class="footnote">[148]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1139648"></a><p>
+63%.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp49339040" class="footnote" name="idp49339040"><sup class="footnote">[148]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9340032"></a><p>
Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the Family</em> would
find that he had the choice either to make the show less edgy or to be
fired: The content of any show developed for a network is increasingly
owned by the network.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1141520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41142336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9341904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49342720"></a><p>
While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the ownership
of those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller few. As
Barry Diller said to Bill Moyers,
u]sed to have dozens and dozens of thriving independent production
companies producing television programs. Now you have less than a
-handful.<a href="#ftn.idp41145008" class="footnote" name="idp41145008"><sup class="footnote">[149]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1147712"></a><p>
+handful.<a href="#ftn.idp49345392" class="footnote" name="idp49345392"><sup class="footnote">[149]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9348096"></a><p>
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
to Siberia, but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical,
different views are quashed. This is not the environment for a
democracy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1149072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9349456"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
-affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's
-Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms find it rational to ignore
+affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Innovator's
+Dilemma</span>”</span>: the fact that large traditional firms find it rational to ignore
new, breakthrough technologies that compete with their core business.
The same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media
-companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<a href="#ftn.idp41151776" class="footnote" name="idp41151776"><sup class="footnote">[150]</sup></a>
+companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<a href="#ftn.idp49352160" class="footnote" name="idp49352160"><sup class="footnote">[150]</sup></a>
Lumbering giants not only don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the
field is only open to the giants, there will be far too little
sprinting.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41155184"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49355568"></a>
</p><p>
I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media
market to say with certainty what concentration and integration will
In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1157776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9358160"></a><p>
Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to
any position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound
mistake. I am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once
is through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we
depend fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about
these issues.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommercials"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtelevisionadvertisingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1165904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommercials"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtelevisionadvertisingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9366112"></a><p>
Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched
-a media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign produced
+a media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>”</span> The campaign produced
scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal drugs. In
one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar, discussing
the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the collateral
money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in
the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your
message will be heard then?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1170288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41171360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41172176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41173296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9370496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49371568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49372384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49373504"></a><p>
No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">controversial</span>”</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are
controversial. This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with
the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court has held that stations have
the right to choose what they run. Thus, the major channels of
commercial media will refuse one side of a crucial debate the
opportunity to present its case. And the courts will defend the
-rights of the stations to be this biased.<a href="#ftn.idp41175648" class="footnote" name="idp41175648"><sup class="footnote">[151]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1188160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41189408"></a><p>
+rights of the stations to be this biased.<a href="#ftn.idp49375856" class="footnote" name="idp49375856"><sup class="footnote">[151]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9388368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49389616"></a><p>
I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived
in a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the
media throws that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies
matters. You might like the positions the handful of companies
selects. But you should not like a world in which a mere few get to
decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1192464"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Together</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9392608"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Together</h2></div></div></div><p>
There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the
-copyright warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span>
+copyright warriors that the government should <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>”</span>
In the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally
harmless. No sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
</p><p>
-But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> has changed—
+But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> has changed—
when we recognize how it might now interact with both technology and
markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty to
cultivate our culture is dramatically different—the claim begins
less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated
markets to weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing
-the massively expanded <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights granted by copyright
+the massively expanded <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> rights granted by copyright
fundamentally changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and
build upon our past, then we have to ask whether this property should
be redefined.
of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus the market
now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the most
significant regulation of culture that our free society has
-known.<a href="#ftn.idp41204032" class="footnote" name="idp41204032"><sup class="footnote">[152]</sup></a>
+known.<a href="#ftn.idp49404224" class="footnote" name="idp49404224"><sup class="footnote">[152]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>This has been</strong></span> a long chapter. Its
point can now be briefly stated.
if derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
</p><p>
The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of
-course copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
+course copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property,</span>”</span> and of course, as with any
property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all
-property rights<a href="#ftn.idp41246544" class="footnote" name="idp41246544"><sup class="footnote">[153]</sup></a>)
+property rights<a href="#ftn.idp49446688" class="footnote" name="idp49446688"><sup class="footnote">[153]</sup></a>)
has been crafted to balance the important need to give authors and
artists incentives with the equally important need to assure access to
creative work. This balance has always been struck in light of new
-technologies. And for almost half of our tradition, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>
+technologies. And for almost half of our tradition, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span>
did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> the freedom of others to
build upon or transform a creative work. American culture was born
free, and for almost 180 years our country consistently protected a
vibrant and rich free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1250880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9451024"></a><p>
We achieved that free culture because our law respected important
-limits on the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
-birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those limits, by
+limits on the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> The very
+birth of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> as a statutory right recognized those limits, by
granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
-story of chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Chapter 6. Chapter Six: Founders">6</a>). The tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> is
+story of chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Chapter 6. Chapter Six: Founders">6</a>). The tradition of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> is
animated by a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the
costs of exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the
story of chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Chapter 7. Chapter Seven: Recorders">7</a>). Adding
opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened in a world in
which creation requires permission and creativity must check with a
lawyer.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp40369024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40369024" class="para"><sup class="para">[118] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp48570096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48570096" class="para"><sup class="para">[118] </sup></a>
Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.
4794, H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the
Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack
Valenti).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40377728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40377728" class="para"><sup class="para">[119] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48578864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48578864" class="para"><sup class="para">[119] </sup></a>
-Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle
+Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle
of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
-object. Thus, my <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property right</span>»</span> to my car gives me the right to
+object. Thus, my <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property right</span>”</span> to my car gives me the right to
exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For
-the best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property and the
+the best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>”</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property and the
Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 26–27.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40441408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40441408" class="para"><sup class="para">[120] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48643088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48643088" class="para"><sup class="para">[120] </sup></a>
By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't
mean to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they
right self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the
other three is more timidly expressed. See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And
Other Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95;
-Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Legal Studies</em>,
+Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Legal Studies</em>,
June 1998.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40443856"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40452368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40452368" class="para"><sup class="para">[121] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48645536"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48653952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48653952" class="para"><sup class="para">[121] </sup></a>
-Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They object
+Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">liberty.</span>”</span> They object
because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any
particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people
minds, not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill,
<em class="citetitle">On Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co.,
1978), 19. John R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of
-labor from constraints imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
-Right to Work,</span>»</span> in Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds.,
+labor from constraints imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The
+Right to Work,</span>”</span> in Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds.,
<em class="citetitle">John R. Commons: Selected Essays</em> (London:
Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans with Disabilities Act increases
the liberty of people with physical disabilities by changing the
conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The effect of
those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand the
effective liberty that each of these groups might face.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40457552"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40458384"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40459200"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40460048"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40460864"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40510304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40510304" class="para"><sup class="para">[122] </sup></a>
-
-See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?</span>»</span>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48659184"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48660016"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48660832"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48661680"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48662496"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48711888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48711888" class="para"><sup class="para">[122] </sup></a>
+
+See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?</span>”</span>
BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #23</a>. For a more
recent analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana
-R. Schoenberger, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6
+R. Schoenberger, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>”</span> Forbes.com, 6
October 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #24</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40523440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40523440" class="para"><sup class="para">[123] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48725088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48725088" class="para"><sup class="para">[123] </sup></a>
Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley, 1994), 170–71.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40554144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40554144" class="para"><sup class="para">[124] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48755680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48755680" class="para"><sup class="para">[124] </sup></a>
-See, for example, James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
-Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40623936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40623936" class="para"><sup class="para">[125] </sup></a>
+See, for example, James Boyle, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
+Environmentalism for the Net?</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48824944" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48824944" class="para"><sup class="para">[125] </sup></a>
William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the
History of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University
-Press, 1953), vol. 1, 485–86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain
+Press, 1953), vol. 1, 485–86: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain
implication of <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">the supreme Law of the Land,</span>’</span>
<span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had, or were supposed by
-some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span> (emphasis
+some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>”</span> (emphasis
added).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40626624"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40636192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40636192" class="para"><sup class="para">[126] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48827632"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48837152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48837152" class="para"><sup class="para">[126] </sup></a>
Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790
to 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly, because the term of
copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was fourteen years,
with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen years. Copyright
-Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp40644592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40644592" class="para"><sup class="para">[127] </sup></a>
+Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp48845488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48845488" class="para"><sup class="para">[127] </sup></a>
Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For
instance, of the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were
renewed in 1910. For a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal
-rates, see Barbara A. Ringer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>»</span>
+rates, see Barbara A. Ringer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Studies on Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute,
1963), 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William
-M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
+M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471, 498–501, and
-accompanying figures. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp40651664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40651664" class="para"><sup class="para">[128] </sup></a>
+accompanying figures. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp48852624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48852624" class="para"><sup class="para">[128] </sup></a>
-See Ringer, ch. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp40679696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40679696" class="para"><sup class="para">[129] </sup></a>
+See Ringer, ch. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp48879888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48879888" class="para"><sup class="para">[129] </sup></a>
These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the
first year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never
more than thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and
-Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40719408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40719408" class="para"><sup class="para">[130] </sup></a>
+Posner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>”</span> loc. cit.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48919456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48919456" class="para"><sup class="para">[130] </sup></a>
-See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
-Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University Journal of
+See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
+Creation of American Literature,</span>”</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University Journal of
International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James Gilraeth, ed.,
Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O., 1987).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40736528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40736528" class="para"><sup class="para">[131] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48936544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48936544" class="para"><sup class="para">[131] </sup></a>
-Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Legal
+Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Legal
Affairs</em>, July/August 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40739024"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40740752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40740752" class="para"><sup class="para">[132] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48939040"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48940768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48940768" class="para"><sup class="para">[132] </sup></a>
Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument
about the difference that copyright law should draw (from the
-perspective of the First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and
-derivative works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination:
-Copyright's Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law
+perspective of the First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies</span>”</span> and
+derivative works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination:
+Copyright's Constitutionality,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law
Journal</em> 112 (2002): 1–60 (see especially
pp. 53–59).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40742896"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40756928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40756928" class="para"><sup class="para">[133] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp48943056"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48957232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48957232" class="para"><sup class="para">[133] </sup></a>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law
-certainly regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>—a public performance of a
+certainly regulates more than <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies</span>”</span>—a public performance of a
copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance
per se doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
-106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span>; 17
+106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy</span>”</span>; 17
<em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the presumption under the
-existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span> 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
+existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies;</span>”</span> 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40769936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40769936" class="para"><sup class="para">[134] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp48970128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp48970128" class="para"><sup class="para">[134] </sup></a>
Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law
extends, we should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good
argument for its extending where it does, and should not determine its
reach on the basis of arbitrary and automatic changes caused by
technology.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40820016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40820016" class="para"><sup class="para">[135] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49019712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49019712" class="para"><sup class="para">[135] </sup></a>
-I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be different, but
+I don't mean <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">nature</span>”</span> in the sense that it couldn't be different, but
rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical networks
need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital network
could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same number
of copies remain.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40917920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40917920" class="para"><sup class="para">[136] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49117728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49117728" class="para"><sup class="para">[136] </sup></a>
-See David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Law and
+See David Lange, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Law and
Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172–73.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40920512" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40920512" class="para"><sup class="para">[137] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49120320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49120320" class="para"><sup class="para">[137] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40921216"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49121024"></a>
Ibid. See also Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
Copywrongs</em>, 1–3.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp40960368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp40960368" class="para"><sup class="para">[138] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49160784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49160784" class="para"><sup class="para">[138] </sup></a>
In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might,
for example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I
obligation) would come from the contract, not from copyright law, and
the obligations of contract would not necessarily pass to anyone who
subsequently acquired the book.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40961952"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41013344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41013344" class="para"><sup class="para">[139] </sup></a>
-
-See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles
-the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog New Tricks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>,
-January 2002; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to
-DMCA,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11 December 2001; Bill
-Holland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech Concerns,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>,
-May 2001; Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com,
-April 2001; Electronic Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked
-Questions about <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49162368"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49213776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49213776" class="para"><sup class="para">[139] </sup></a>
+
+See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,</span>”</span>
+<em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles
+the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog New Tricks,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>,
+January 2002; <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to
+DMCA,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11 December 2001; Bill
+Holland, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech Concerns,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>,
+May 2001; Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>”</span> Salon.com,
+April 2001; Electronic Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Frequently Asked
+Questions about <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> Legal Case,</span>”</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41020224"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41057200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41057200" class="para"><sup class="para">[140] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49220656"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49257776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49257776" class="para"><sup class="para">[140] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41057936"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49258512"></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417,
455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the VCR. See
James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of
the VCR</em> (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp40922512"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41083888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41083888" class="para"><sup class="para">[141] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49122320"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49284288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49284288" class="para"><sup class="para">[141] </sup></a>
-For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal Fictions,
-Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles
+For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Legal Fictions,
+Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles
Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17 (1997): 651.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41099824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41099824" class="para"><sup class="para">[142] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49300336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49300336" class="para"><sup class="para">[142] </sup></a>
FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)
-(statement of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp41101040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41101040" class="para"><sup class="para">[143] </sup></a>
+(statement of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp49301552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49301552" class="para"><sup class="para">[143] </sup></a>
-Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
-Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41103168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41103168" class="para"><sup class="para">[144] </sup></a>
+Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
+Slide,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49303680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49303680" class="para"><sup class="para">[144] </sup></a>
-Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>,
+Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>,
31 May 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41114320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41114320" class="para"><sup class="para">[145] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49314768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49314768" class="para"><sup class="para">[145] </sup></a>
-James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em> (September
+James Fallows, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em> (September
2003): 89.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41116432"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41129552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41129552" class="para"><sup class="para">[146] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49316880"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49329936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49329936" class="para"><sup class="para">[146] </sup></a>
-Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum Center
-Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span> St. Louis,
+Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>”</span> remarks before Weidenbaum Center
+Forum, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>”</span> St. Louis,
Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>;
for the Lear story, not included in the prepared remarks, see
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41136112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41136112" class="para"><sup class="para">[147] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49336496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49336496" class="para"><sup class="para">[147] </sup></a>
NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West,
in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February
2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41138656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41138656" class="para"><sup class="para">[148] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49339040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49339040" class="para"><sup class="para">[148] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41145008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41145008" class="para"><sup class="para">[149] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49345392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49345392" class="para"><sup class="para">[149] </sup></a>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with Bill Moyers</em>, Bill
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with Bill Moyers</em>, Bill
Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41151776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41151776" class="para"><sup class="para">[150] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49352160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49352160" class="para"><sup class="para">[150] </sup></a>
Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do Business</em>
(Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 1997). Christensen
acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean Kim Clark. See
-Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market
-Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Research Policy</em> 14 (1985):
+Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market
+Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Research Policy</em> 14 (1985):
235–51. For a more recent study, see Richard Foster and Sarah
Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last
Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them</em>
-(New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp41175648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41175648" class="para"><sup class="para">[151] </sup></a>
-
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41176384"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41177136"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41177952"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41178784"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41179568"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41180384"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41181216"></a>
+(New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp49375856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49375856" class="para"><sup class="para">[151] </sup></a>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49376592"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49377344"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49378160"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49378992"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49379824"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49380640"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49381424"></a>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against
-[their] policy.</span>»</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads
+the Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">against
+[their] policy.</span>”</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads
without reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally
agreed to run the ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided
not to run the ads and returned the collected fees. Interview with
Neal Levine, 15 October 2003. These restrictions are, of course, not
-limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">On the
+limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">On the
Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV
-Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 13 March
+Networks,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 13 March
2003, C4. Outside of election-related air time there is very little
that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even the playing
-field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ad Hoc Access:
+field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ad Hoc Access:
The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
-Radio,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6
+Radio,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6
(1988): 449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of
the FCC and the courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
(D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as
the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San
Francisco transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni
-diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group
-Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad,</span>»</span> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003,
+diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group
+Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad,</span>”</span> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#32</a>. The ground was that the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too
-controversial.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41204032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41204032" class="para"><sup class="para">[152] </sup></a>
+#32</a>. The ground was that the criticism was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">too
+controversial.</span>”</span>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49404224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49404224" class="para"><sup class="para">[152] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41205104"></a>
-Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">four surrenders</span>»</span> of
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49405296"></a>
+Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">four surrenders</span>”</span> of
copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41246544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41246544" class="para"><sup class="para">[153] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49446688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49446688" class="para"><sup class="para">[153] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41247280"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49447424"></a>
It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist
movement to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to
-balance public and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
-Disintegration of Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
+balance public and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The
+Disintegration of Property,</span>”</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University
Press, 1980).
</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Part III. Puzzles</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Chapter 11. Chapter Eleven: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> short story by
H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an
ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in the Peruvian
-Andes.<a href="#ftn.idp41268976" class="footnote" name="idp41268976"><sup class="footnote">[154]</sup></a>
-The valley is extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture,
+Andes.<a href="#ftn.idp49469872" class="footnote" name="idp49469872"><sup class="footnote">[154]</sup></a>
+The valley is extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture,
an even climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub
-that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez
-takes this as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells
-himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live with the
+that bore an excellent fruit.</span>”</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez
+takes this as an opportunity. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>”</span> he tells
+himself, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>”</span> So he resolves to live with the
villagers to explore life as a king.
</p><p>
Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of
sight to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind.</span>»</span> They don't have the word <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">blind.</span>”</span> They don't have the word <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.
Indeed, as they increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the
sound of grass being stepped on, for example), they increasingly try
-to control him. He, in turn, becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">You
+to control him. He, in turn, becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote"><span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">You
don't understand,</span>’</span> he cried, in a voice that was meant to be great and
resolute, and which broke. <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">You are blind and I can see. Leave me
-alone!</span>’</span></span>»</span>
+alone!</span>’</span></span>”</span>
</p><p>
The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his
-affection, a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in
-the whole of creation,</span>»</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's
-description of what he sees <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of
+affection, a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in
+the whole of creation,</span>”</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's
+description of what he sees <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of
fancies, and she listened to his description of the stars and the
mountains and her own sweet white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty
-indulgence.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She did not believe,</span>»</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">she could
-only half understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>»</span>
+indulgence.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">She did not believe,</span>”</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">she could
+only half understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mysteriously delighted</span>»</span>
-love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You see, my dear,</span>»</span> her
-father instructs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has delusions. He can't do
-anything right.</span>»</span> They take Nunez to the village doctor.
+When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mysteriously delighted</span>”</span>
+love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You see, my dear,</span>”</span> her
+father instructs, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has delusions. He can't do
+anything right.</span>”</span> They take Nunez to the village doctor.
</p><p>
-After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">His brain
-is affected,</span>»</span> he reports.
+After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">His brain
+is affected,</span>”</span> he reports.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>»</span> the father asks. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Those queer things that are
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>”</span> the father asks. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Those queer things that are
called the eyes … are diseased … in such a way as to affect
-his brain.</span>»</span>
+his brain.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-The doctor continues: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
+The doctor continues: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a
simple and easy surgical operation—namely, to remove these
-irritant bodies [the eyes].</span>»</span>
+irritant bodies [the eyes].</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They inform
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>”</span> says the father to the doctor. They inform
Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
(You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>It sometimes</strong></span> happens that the eggs
of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature with two sets
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">chimera.</span>”</span> A chimera is a single creature with two sets
of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the
DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused
-plot for murder mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent
+plot for murder mysteries. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent
certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at the
-scene. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1287344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41288448"></a><p>
+scene. …</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9488240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49489344"></a><p>
Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were
impossible. A single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea
of DNA is that it is the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only
can two individuals have the same set of DNA (identical twins), but
one person can have two different sets of DNA (a chimera). Our
-understanding of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> should reflect this reality.
+understanding of a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">person</span>”</span> should reflect this reality.
</p><p>
The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not
-unfairly enough, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>»</span> the more I think we're dealing
-with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What is
-p2p file sharing?</span>»</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
-wrong. One side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
+unfairly enough, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>”</span> the more I think we're dealing
+with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What is
+p2p file sharing?</span>”</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
+wrong. One side says, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
others' records—the sort of thing we've been doing for the last
-thirty years without any question at all.</span>»</span> That's true, at least in
+thirty years without any question at all.</span>”</span> That's true, at least in
part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought,
but rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that
is, in all relevant respects, just like what every executive in every
But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is
on a p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then
sure, my friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my ten thousand best friends</span>»</span> can
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">friends</span>”</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">my ten thousand best friends</span>”</span> can
get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best friend is
-what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>»</span> we have not always been
-allowed to share music with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our ten thousand best friends.</span>»</span>
+what <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>”</span> we have not always been
+allowed to share music with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">our ten thousand best friends.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
+Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out
-with it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett
+with it,</span>”</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett
(finally) releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa
and find a free copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy
from Tower.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41297040"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49498000"></a>
</p><p>
we can get universities to monitor all computer traffic to make sure
that no computer is used to commit this crime. These responses might
be extreme, but each of them has either been proposed or actually
-implemented.<a href="#ftn.idp41300832" class="footnote" name="idp41300832"><sup class="footnote">[155]</sup></a>
+implemented.<a href="#ftn.idp49501792" class="footnote" name="idp49501792"><sup class="footnote">[155]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1312016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9512976"></a><p>
Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act
as though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be
no copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making
never had before. And in this extremism, many an opportunity for new
innovation and new creativity will be lost.
</p><p>
-I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> music. My
+I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">steal</span>”</span> 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
which they will be able to access digital media and the equipment
that they will require to do so. Poor choices made this early in the
game will retard the growth of this market, hurting everyone's
-interests.<a href="#ftn.idp41320192" class="footnote" name="idp41320192"><sup class="footnote">[156]</sup></a>
+interests.<a href="#ftn.idp49521616" class="footnote" name="idp49521616"><sup class="footnote">[156]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal,
-one of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
+one of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>”</span> Its position on these matters has now
changed.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41322864"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49524288"></a>
</p><p>
Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash
piracy. It will sacrifice values that are important to this culture,
and will kill opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp41268976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41268976" class="para"><sup class="para">[154] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp49469872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49469872" class="para"><sup class="para">[154] </sup></a>
-H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells,
+H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>”</span> (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells,
<em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41300832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41300832" class="para"><sup class="para">[155] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49501792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49501792" class="para"><sup class="para">[155] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41301536"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49502496"></a>
For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>”</span> 27 June 2003,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
(D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized
on-line copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high
-as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up
-Stakes on Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at
+as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up
+Stakes on Piracy,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #34</a>. Civil
penalties are currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent
(and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP
$12,000 to $17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on
university networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98
billion the RIAA could seek should the matter proceed to court. See
-Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com,
+Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>”</span> redandblack.com,
August 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an
example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the
subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer
-identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
-Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at
+identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
+Name Students,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41310128"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41310944"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41320192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41320192" class="para"><sup class="para">[156] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49511088"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49511904"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49521616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49521616" class="para"><sup class="para">[156] </sup></a>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
Harter, vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards,
EMusic.com), available in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony File. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Chapter 12. Chapter Twelve: Harms</h2></div></div></div><p>
-<span class="strong"><strong>To fight</strong></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to
-protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the content industry has launched a
+<span class="strong"><strong>To fight</strong></span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> to
+protect <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property,</span>”</span> the content industry has launched a
war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both
direct and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these
damages will be suffered most by our own people.
</p><p>
My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
-particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now is to
+particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free culture.</span>”</span> But my aim now is to
extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
justified?
</p><p>
In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the
first time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the
-power of the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest in
+power of the property called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> is at its greatest in
our history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1330512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41331328"></a><p>
-Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is still on
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9531968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49532784"></a><p>
+Yet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">common sense</span>”</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is still on
the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme claims
of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
-rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1333648"></a><p>
+rejection of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> still has play.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9535104"></a><p>
There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to
describe just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite
statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could
weave together a string—a mash-up— of songs from your
favorite artists in a collage and make it available on the Net.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1336880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41339056"></a><p>
-This digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> is in part an extension of the
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9538384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49540560"></a><p>
+This digital <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>”</span> is in part an extension of the
capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture,
and in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but
it explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology
-of digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> promises a world of extraordinarily
+of digital <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>”</span> promises a world of extraordinarily
diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly shared. And as that
creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a broad range of
citizens to use technology to express and criticize and contribute to
on remote topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative
work spread across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this
work is presumptively illegal.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1343584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41344368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41345488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41346608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41347440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9545184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49545968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49547088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49548208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49549040"></a><p>
That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the
examples of extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to
proliferate. It is impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed
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.<a href="#ftn.idp41350224" class="footnote" name="idp41350224"><sup class="footnote">[157]</sup></a>
+million.<a href="#ftn.idp49552192" class="footnote" name="idp49552192"><sup class="footnote">[157]</sup></a>
And under legislation being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who
negligently removes the wrong leg in an operation would be liable for
no more than $250,000 in damages for pain and
-suffering.<a href="#ftn.idp41354112" class="footnote" name="idp41354112"><sup class="footnote">[158]</sup></a>
+suffering.<a href="#ftn.idp49556080" class="footnote" name="idp49556080"><sup class="footnote">[158]</sup></a>
Can common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where
the maximum fine for downloading two songs off the Internet is more
than the fine for a doctor's negligently butchering a patient?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1360192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9562160"></a><p>
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely
high penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will
either never be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive
this creative process underground by branding the modern-day Walt
-Disneys <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
+Disneys <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirates.</span>”</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are
designed to
we will begin to see a world of underground art—not because the
message is necessarily political, or because the subject is
controversial, but because the very act of creating the art is legally
-fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal art</span>»</span> tour the United
-States.<a href="#ftn.idp41363344" class="footnote" name="idp41363344"><sup class="footnote">[159]</sup></a>
- In what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist?
+fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">illegal art</span>”</span> tour the United
+States.<a href="#ftn.idp49565312" class="footnote" name="idp49565312"><sup class="footnote">[159]</sup></a>
+ In what does their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">illegality</span>”</span> consist?
In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that is
critical or reflective.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1367280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9569248"></a><p>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the
changing law. I described that change in detail in chapter
-<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>. But an
+<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a>. But an
even bigger part has to do with the increasing ease with which
infractions can be tracked. As users of file-sharing systems
discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for copyright owners to get
content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a list of
the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that anyone
could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1370096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9572064"></a><p>
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether
his painting infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day
painter, using the tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web,
tradition that prides itself on the rule of law.
</p><p>
Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">breathing room</span>»</span> between regulation by the law and the access the law
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">breathing room</span>”</span> between regulation by the law and the access the law
should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal system
has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors
impose upon filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon
journalists— these are the real laws governing creativity. And
-these rules have little relationship to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law</span>»</span> with which judges
+these rules have little relationship to the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">law</span>”</span> with which judges
comfort themselves.
</p><p>
For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful
which would never return to the wrongfully accused defendant anything
of the costs she suffered to defend her right to speak—in that
world, the astonishingly broad regulations that pass under the name
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> silence speech and creativity. And in that world, it takes
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> silence speech and creativity. And in that world, it takes
a studied blindness for people to continue to believe they live in a
culture that is free.
</p><p>
won't get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made … you're not
going to get it distributed in the mainstream media unless
-you've got a little note from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been
-cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even going to get it on PBS without that kind of
+you've got a little note from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This has been
+cleared.</span>”</span> You're not even going to get it on PBS without that kind of
permission. That's the point at which they control it.
</p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovationhamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinnovationindustryestablishmentopposedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism2"></a><p>
The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty
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, <a class="xref" href="#innovators" title="12.2. Constraining Innovators"></a> pages into a book like this), then you
-can see this other aspect by substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span>
-every place I've spoken of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is
+can see this other aspect by substituting <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free market</span>”</span>
+every place I've spoken of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free culture.</span>”</span> The point is
the same, even if the interests affecting culture are more
fundamental.
</p><p>
perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which regulation
simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect themselves
against the competitors of tomorrow.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1392512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41394640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41395456"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9594560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49596752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49597568"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory
-strategy that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive
+strategy that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a>. The consequence of this massive
threat of liability tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is
that innovators who want to innovate in this space can safely innovate
only if they have the sign-off from last generation's dominant
industries. That lesson has been taught through a series of cases
that were designed and executed to teach venture capitalists a
lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry calls a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the Valley—has been learned.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1399024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41399664"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>”</span> that has fallen over the Valley—has been learned.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9601136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49601776"></a><p>
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning
I told in <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way that
even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1404560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9606688"></a><p>
In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com
was keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to
facilitate new ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to
facilitate new ways to create content. Unlike the major labels,
MP3.com offered creators a venue to distribute their creativity,
without demanding an exclusive engagement from the creators.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1406176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9608688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
my.mp3.com service was to give users access to their own content, and
as a by-product, by seeing the content they already owned, to discover
the kind of content the users liked.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1411664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9614176"></a><p>
To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000
CDs to a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who
uploaded the music, but that would have taken a great deal of time,
had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while this was 50,000
copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers something
they had already bought.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1415360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41416496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41419616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41420736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41421840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9617872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49619008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49622016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49623136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49624240"></a><p>
Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels,
headed by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled
with four of the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found
illegal; therefore, this lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had
dared to suggest that the law was less restrictive than the labels
demanded.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1425728"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9627616"></a><p>
The clear purpose of this lawsuit (which was settled for an
unspecified amount shortly after the story was no longer covered in
the press) was to send an unequivocal message to lawyers advising
industry directs its guns against them. It is also you. So those of
you who believe the law should be less restrictive should realize that
such a view of the law will cost you and your firm dearly.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1428192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41429472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41430784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41432224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41433040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41437120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41437904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41438720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41439536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41440352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41441168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41443840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41444656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9630080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49631360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49632608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49634048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49634864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49639104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49639888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49640704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49641520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49642336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49643152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49645824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49646640"></a><p>
This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003,
Universal and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the
venture capital firm (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of
its development, its cofounder (John Hummer), and general partner
-(Hank Barry).<a href="#ftn.idp41446032" class="footnote" name="idp41446032"><sup class="footnote">[160]</sup></a>
+(Hank Barry).<a href="#ftn.idp49648016" class="footnote" name="idp49648016"><sup class="footnote">[160]</sup></a>
The claim here, as well, was that the VC should have recognized the
right of the content industry to control how the industry should
develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a company
the car's built-in sound system, but that the company's marketing
and legal departments weren't comfortable with pushing this
forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are sold in the
-United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <a href="#ftn.idp41379232" class="footnote" name="idp41379232"><sup class="footnote">[161]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1456016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41457328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41458640"></a><p>
-This is the world of the mafia—filled with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">your money or your
-life</span>»</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
+United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <a href="#ftn.idp49581104" class="footnote" name="idp49581104"><sup class="footnote">[161]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9658000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49659248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49660560"></a><p>
+This is the world of the mafia—filled with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">your money or your
+life</span>”</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
that the law empowers copyright holders to exercise. It is a system
that will obviously and necessarily stifle new innovation. It is hard
enough to start a company. It is impossibly hard if that company is
constantly threatened by litigation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarketconstraints3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionculturetransactioncostof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1464640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41465744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarketconstraints3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionculturetransactioncostof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9666496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49667600"></a><p>
The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
-enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal.</span>»</span> The law is a
+enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">illegal.</span>”</span> The law is a
mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply
to new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial
deference, and by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that
much less creativity.
</p><p>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
-use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of law in
+use. Whatever the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">real</span>”</span> law is, realism about the effect of law in
both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect
some industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and
within a permission culture are enough to bury a wide range of
creativity. Someone needs to do a lot of justifying to justify that
result.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1472832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41474000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9673888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49675056"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The uncertainty</strong></span> of the law is one
burden on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more
directly. This is the effort by many in the content industry to use
The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the
Internet's design. But from the perspective of the content industry,
-this feature is a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bug.</span>»</span> The efficient spread of content means that
+this feature is a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bug.</span>”</span> The efficient spread of content means that
content distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution
of content. One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make
-the Internet less efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then,
+the Internet less efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> then,
this response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1478544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9679600"></a><p>
The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of
the content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that
would require computers to determine whether the content they access
-is protected or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<a href="#ftn.idp41479904" class="footnote" name="idp41479904"><sup class="footnote">[162]</sup></a>
+is protected or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<a href="#ftn.idp49680960" class="footnote" name="idp49680960"><sup class="footnote">[162]</sup></a>
Congress has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on any device capable of
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>”</span> that would be required on any device capable of
transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would disable
the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast flag. Other
members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers from
liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt down
-copyright violators and disable their machines.<a href="#ftn.idp41482848" class="footnote" name="idp41482848"><sup class="footnote">[163]</sup></a>
+copyright violators and disable their machines.<a href="#ftn.idp49683904" class="footnote" name="idp49683904"><sup class="footnote">[163]</sup></a>
</p><p>
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the
code, why not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any
the technology, but will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly
those requirements.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1484960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9686016"></a><p>
In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by
Intel, tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation
-would impose.<a href="#ftn.idp41486160" class="footnote" name="idp41486160"><sup class="footnote">[164]</sup></a>
+would impose.<a href="#ftn.idp49687216" class="footnote" name="idp49687216"><sup class="footnote">[164]</sup></a>
Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not be
protected. Instead, they argued, any protection should not do more
harm than good.
of regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.
When done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done
wrong, it is regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1489808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41490880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41491696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41492512"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9690864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49691936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49692752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49693568"></a><p>
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as
regulation, and subject to important qualifications outlined by
Jessica Litman in her book <em class="citetitle">Digital
-Copyright</em>,<a href="#ftn.idp41495392" class="footnote" name="idp41495392"><sup class="footnote">[165]</sup></a>
+Copyright</em>,<a href="#ftn.idp49696448" class="footnote" name="idp49696448"><sup class="footnote">[165]</sup></a>
overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter
-<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a> details,
+<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a> 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
creators, both the courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions
that will have the effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetradioon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiooninternet"></a><p>
-The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<a href="#ftn.idp41504384" class="footnote" name="idp41504384"><sup class="footnote">[166]</sup></a>
+The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<a href="#ftn.idp49705536" class="footnote" name="idp49705536"><sup class="footnote">[166]</sup></a>
It has been mirrored in the responses threatened and actually
implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
-here.<a href="#ftn.idp41508704" class="footnote" name="idp41508704"><sup class="footnote">[167]</sup></a>
+here.<a href="#ftn.idp49709856" class="footnote" name="idp49709856"><sup class="footnote">[167]</sup></a>
But there is one example that captures the flavor of them all. This is
the story of the demise of Internet radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1515456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41516544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41517360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiomusicrecordingsplayedon2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9716608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49717696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49718512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiomusicrecordingsplayedon2"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Chapter Four: «Pirates»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording
-artist doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Chapter Four: “Pirates”">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording
+artist doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radio performance</span>”</span> unless he or she
is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
-version of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span>—to memorialize her famous
+version of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span>—to memorialize her famous
performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden—
then whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current
-copyright owners of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> would get some money, whereas
+copyright owners of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span> would get some money, whereas
Marilyn Monroe would not.
</p><p>
The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some
than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists were quite good
at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require compensation to the
recording artists.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1524544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9725696"></a><p>
Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a
technology to stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The
broadcast travels across the Internet, not across the ether of radio
-spectrum. Thus, I can <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tune in</span>»</span> to an Internet radio station in
+spectrum. Thus, I can <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tune in</span>”</span> to an Internet radio station in
Berlin while sitting in San Francisco, even though there's no way for
me to tune in to a regular radio station much beyond the San Francisco
metropolitan area.
easily develop and market their content to a relatively large number
of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1528208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9729360"></a><p>
Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an
became possible for men freely to acquire printing presses and freely
to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention as the
printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
-shackles.<a href="#ftn.idp41452272" class="footnote" name="idp41452272"><sup class="footnote">[168]</sup></a>
+shackles.<a href="#ftn.idp49654688" class="footnote" name="idp49654688"><sup class="footnote">[168]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This potential for FM radio was never realized—not
because Armstrong was wrong about the technology, but because he
-underestimated the power of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and
-legislation</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41533376" class="footnote" name="idp41533376"><sup class="footnote">[169]</sup></a>
+underestimated the power of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and
+legislation</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp49734528" class="footnote" name="idp49734528"><sup class="footnote">[169]</sup></a>
to retard the growth of this competing technology.
</p><p>
Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For
those imposed by the law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first
question we should ask is, what copyright rules would govern Internet
radio?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1537008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41538112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41539216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9738160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49739264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49740368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></a><p>
But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a
new industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very
a different rule for Internet radio than the rule that applies to
terrestrial radio. While terrestrial radio does not have to pay our
hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when it plays her hypothetical recording
-of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> on the air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio
+of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span> on the air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio
does</em></span>. Not only is the law not neutral toward Internet
radio—the law actually burdens Internet radio more than it
burdens terrestrial radio.
William Fisher estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree
popular music to (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four
hours a day, the total artist fees that radio station would owe would be
-over $1 million a year.<a href="#ftn.idp41552848" class="footnote" name="idp41552848"><sup class="footnote">[170]</sup></a>
+over $1 million a year.<a href="#ftn.idp49754080" class="footnote" name="idp49754080"><sup class="footnote">[170]</sup></a>
A regular radio station broadcasting the same content would pay no
equivalent fee.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1558512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41559904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41561296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41562624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41564000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9760240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49761632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49763024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49764352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49765728"></a><p>
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio
station) would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every
unique user identifier;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
the country in which the user received the transmissions.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1582160"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9783888"></a><p>
The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting
requirements, pending further study. And he also changed the original
rates set by the arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the
Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the
economic consequences from Internet radio that would justify these
differences? Was the motive to protect artists against piracy?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1584736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9786464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></a><p>
In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious
to everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public
Policy at Real Networks, told me,
pay to a willing seller, and it was much higher. It was ten times
higher than what radio stations pay to perform the same songs for
the same period of time. And so the attorneys representing the
-webcasters asked the RIAA, … <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How do you come up with a
+webcasters asked the RIAA, … <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How do you come up with a
rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio? Because
here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay, and
that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so
high, you're going to drive the small webcasters out of
-business. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1595600"></a><p>
-And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
+business. …</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9797376"></a><p>
+And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be
an industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a
-high rate and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis
+high rate and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>”</span> (Emphasis
added.)
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1598304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41599552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41600896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41602288"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9800080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49801328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49802736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49804128"></a><p>
Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so
that this platform of potentially immense competition, which would
cause the diversity and range of content available to explode, would not
or the left, who should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is
practically no one, on either the right or the left, who is doing anything
effective to prevent it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1604528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41605856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41607248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41608560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41609808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41611088"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9806368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49807696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49809024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49810400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49811648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49812896"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
dinosaurs
a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with
every war of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very
large number of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43 million
-Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<a href="#ftn.idp41615696" class="footnote" name="idp41615696"><sup class="footnote">[171]</sup></a>
+Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<a href="#ftn.idp49817600" class="footnote" name="idp49817600"><sup class="footnote">[171]</sup></a>
According to the RIAA,
the behavior of those 43 million Americans is a felony. We thus have a
set of rules that transform 20 percent of America into criminals. As the
RIAA's suits against individual users. In September 2003, the RIAA
sued 261 individuals—including a twelve-year-old girl living in public
housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what file sharing
-was.<a href="#ftn.idp41551952" class="footnote" name="idp41551952"><sup class="footnote">[172]</sup></a>
+was.<a href="#ftn.idp49753184" class="footnote" name="idp49753184"><sup class="footnote">[172]</sup></a>
As these scapegoats discovered, it will always cost more to defend
against these suits than it would cost to simply settle. (The twelve
year old, for example, like Jesse Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000
is an embarrassment to our tradition. And the consequence of our law
as it is, is that those with the power can use the law to quash any rights
they oppose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1622352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9824176"></a><p>
Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just
something more extreme than anything we've seen before. We
experimented with alcohol prohibition, at a time when the per capita
of its preprohibition levels, but by the end of prohibition,
consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast
-number were criminals.<a href="#ftn.idp41623984" class="footnote" name="idp41623984"><sup class="footnote">[173]</sup></a>
+number were criminals.<a href="#ftn.idp49825808" class="footnote" name="idp49825808"><sup class="footnote">[173]</sup></a>
We have
launched a war on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated
-narcotics that 7 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<a href="#ftn.idp41626272" class="footnote" name="idp41626272"><sup class="footnote">[174]</sup></a>
+narcotics that 7 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<a href="#ftn.idp49828096" class="footnote" name="idp49828096"><sup class="footnote">[174]</sup></a>
That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast
majority of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex
tax system that a majority of cash businesses regularly
-cheat.<a href="#ftn.idp41627600" class="footnote" name="idp41627600"><sup class="footnote">[175]</sup></a>
-We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of
+cheat.<a href="#ftn.idp49829424" class="footnote" name="idp49829424"><sup class="footnote">[175]</sup></a>
+We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free society,</span>”</span> but an endless array of
ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a
huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1630160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9831984"></a><p>
This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law
-students about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
+students about the importance of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ethics.</span>”</span> As my colleague Charlie
Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands
of students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed
alcohol and sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes,
that will mean that your case is over. Generations of
Americans—more significantly in some parts of America than in
others, but still, everywhere in America today—can't live their
-lives both normally and legally, since <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain
+lives both normally and legally, since <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">normally</span>”</span> entails a certain
degree of illegality.
</p><p>
The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law
whether my students respect the law. And I do care if the rules of law
sow increasing disrespect because of the extreme of regulation they
impose. Twenty million Americans have come of age since the Internet
-introduced this different idea of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing.</span>»</span> We need to be able to
-call these twenty million Americans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">citizens,</span>»</span> not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">felons.</span>»</span>
+introduced this different idea of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sharing.</span>”</span> We need to be able to
+call these twenty million Americans <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">citizens,</span>”</span> not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">felons.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
used
-record store and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of the
+record store and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use</span>”</span> of the
recordings is free.
</p><p>
But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of
phonograph records that is effectively free. Because these recordings
-were made without copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> to copy,
-or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip,</span>»</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
-Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was a
-right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
+were made without copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> to copy,
+or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rip,</span>”</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
+Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">freedom</span>”</span> was a
+right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>”</span>
capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1643280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
-This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9845104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
+This <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use</span>”</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large
process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful
program called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our
use of CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to
the world where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of
-plastic or were part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights
-management</span>»</span> system.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1649952"></a><p>
+plastic or were part of a massively complex <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">digital rights
+management</span>”</span> system.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9851840"></a><p>
If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination
of the ability to freely move content, then these technologies to
interfere with the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But
Valenti is charming; but not so charming as to justify giving up a
tradition as deep and important as our tradition of free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1655632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9857520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and
follows directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier
Foundation attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn
-a very large percentage of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">collateral damage</span>”</span> that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn
+a very large percentage of the population into criminals.</span>”</span> This
is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1660272"></a><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>»</span> von Lohmann
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9862112"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>”</span> von Lohmann
explains,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections
infringer, how can you hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a
copyright infringer, how can you hope to be secure against seizures of
your computer? How can you hope to continue to receive Internet
-access? … Our sensibilities change as soon as we think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, well,
-but that person's a criminal, a lawbreaker.</span>»</span> Well, what this campaign
+access? … Our sensibilities change as soon as we think, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Oh, well,
+but that person's a criminal, a lawbreaker.</span>”</span> Well, what this campaign
against file sharing has done is turn a remarkable percentage of the
-American Internet-using population into <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>»</span>
+American Internet-using population into <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>”</span>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
And the consequence of this transformation of the American public
into criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
family's computer is used to download a single CD's worth of music,
the family could be liable for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop
the RIAA from suing a number of these families, just as they had sued
-Jesse Jordan.<a href="#ftn.idp41666736" class="footnote" name="idp41666736"><sup class="footnote">[176]</sup></a>
+Jesse Jordan.<a href="#ftn.idp49868576" class="footnote" name="idp49868576"><sup class="footnote">[176]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxnapsterrecordingindustrytrackingusersof"></a><p>
Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the
RIAA. A report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the
-RIAA had adopted to track Napster users.<a href="#ftn.idp41675088" class="footnote" name="idp41675088"><sup class="footnote">[177]</sup></a>
+RIAA had adopted to track Napster users.<a href="#ftn.idp49876992" class="footnote" name="idp49876992"><sup class="footnote">[177]</sup></a>
Using a sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in
effect a fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of
-one of those MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
+one of those MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a
friend gives a CD to your daughter—a collection of songs just
neither does your daughter, where these songs came from. But she
copies these songs onto her computer. She then takes her computer to
college and connects it to a college network, and if the college
-network is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cooperating</span>»</span> with the RIAA's espionage, and she hasn't
+network is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cooperating</span>”</span> with the RIAA's espionage, and she hasn't
properly protected her content from the network (do you know how to do
that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to identify your daughter
-as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules that universities are beginning
-to deploy,<a href="#ftn.idp41679808" class="footnote" name="idp41679808"><sup class="footnote">[178]</sup></a>
+as a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">criminal.</span>”</span> And under the rules that universities are beginning
+to deploy,<a href="#ftn.idp49881648" class="footnote" name="idp49881648"><sup class="footnote">[178]</sup></a>
your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
network. She can, in some cases, be expelled.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1688496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41689808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9890400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49891712"></a><p>
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire
a lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can
plead that she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or
that they came from Napster. And it may well be that the university
believes her. But the university might not believe her. It might treat
-this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
+this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">contraband</span>”</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
college students
have already learned, our presumptions about innocence disappear in
the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
Says von Lohmann,
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1692352"></a><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9894256"></a><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million
Americans that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a
situation where the civil liberties of those people are very much in
slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
million of them.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-When forty to sixty million Americans are considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals</span>»</span> under
+When forty to sixty million Americans are considered <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">criminals</span>”</span> under
the law, and when the law could achieve the same objective—
securing rights to authors—without these millions being
-considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain? Americans or the law?
+considered <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">criminals,</span>”</span> who is the villain? Americans or the law?
Which is American, a constant war on our own people or a concerted
effort through our democracy to change our law?
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp41350224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41350224" class="para"><sup class="para">[157] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp49552192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49552192" class="para"><sup class="para">[157] </sup></a>
See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom</em>
(Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204; for details of
-the settlement, see MCI press release, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins U.S. District Court
-Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7 July 2003), available at
+the settlement, see MCI press release, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">MCI Wins U.S. District Court
+Approval for SEC Settlement</span>”</span> (7 July 2003), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41352960"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41354112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41354112" class="para"><sup class="para">[158] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49554928"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49556080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49556080" class="para"><sup class="para">[158] </sup></a>
The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For
-an overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">We'll Be Back,</span>’</span>
-Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
+an overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">We'll Be Back,</span>’</span>
+Say Tort Reformers,</span>”</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>,
-and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
+and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>”</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in
recent months.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41358096"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41358912"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41363344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41363344" class="para"><sup class="para">[159] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49560064"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49560880"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49565312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49565312" class="para"><sup class="para">[159] </sup></a>
-See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7 July
+See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7 July
2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For an overview of the exhibition, see
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41446032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41446032" class="para"><sup class="para">[160] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49648016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49648016" class="para"><sup class="para">[160] </sup></a>
-See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
+See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel argument about the effects on
-innovation in the distribution of music, see Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music
-Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>»</span> Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available
+innovation in the distribution of music, see Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Music
+Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>”</span> Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>.
-See also Jon Healey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
+See also Jon Healey, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41379232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41379232" class="para"><sup class="para">[161] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49581104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49581104" class="para"><sup class="para">[161] </sup></a>
-Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16 June
+Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16 June
2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. I am grateful
to Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41454816"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41479904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41479904" class="para"><sup class="para">[162] </sup></a>
- <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> GartnerG2 and
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49656800"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49680960" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49680960" class="para"><sup class="para">[162] </sup></a>
+ <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>”</span> GartnerG2 and
the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School
(2003), 33–35, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41482848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41482848" class="para"><sup class="para">[163] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49683904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49683904" class="para"><sup class="para">[163] </sup></a>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41486160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41486160" class="para"><sup class="para">[164] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49687216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49687216" class="para"><sup class="para">[164] </sup></a>
-See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span> Newsbytes,
+See David McGuire, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>”</span> Newsbytes,
February 2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41495392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41495392" class="para"><sup class="para">[165] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49696448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49696448" class="para"><sup class="para">[165] </sup></a>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst,
N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2001).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41496608"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41497440"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41504384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41504384" class="para"><sup class="para">[166] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49697664"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49698496"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49705536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49705536" class="para"><sup class="para">[166] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41505120"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49706272"></a>
The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d
1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement
liability.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41508704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41508704" class="para"><sup class="para">[167] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49709856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49709856" class="para"><sup class="para">[167] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41509440"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41510224"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41511040"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41511856"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49710592"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49711376"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49712192"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49713008"></a>
For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In
August 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate
that technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films
-broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that
+broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>”</span> that
would disable copying of that content. And in March of the same year,
Senator Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital
Television Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection
-technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and
-Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, 33–34,
+technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and
+Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>”</span> 27 June 2003, 33–34,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41452272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41452272" class="para"><sup class="para">[168] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49654688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49654688" class="para"><sup class="para">[168] </sup></a>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41533376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41533376" class="para"><sup class="para">[169] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49734528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49734528" class="para"><sup class="para">[169] </sup></a>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41552848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41552848" class="para"><sup class="para">[170] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49754080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49754080" class="para"><sup class="para">[170] </sup></a>
This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright
Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an
DTRA 1 and 2, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #45</a>.
For an excellent analysis making a similar point, see Randal
-C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright as Entry Policy: The Case of Digital
-Distribution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This was
+C. Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright as Entry Policy: The Case of Digital
+Distribution,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This was
not confusion, these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog
radio stations are protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in
radio and diversity. Yes, this is done in the name of getting
royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the play of powerful
-interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral way.</span>»</span>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41556560"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41557344"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41615696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41615696" class="para"><sup class="para">[171] </sup></a>
- Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span> Pew
+interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral way.</span>”</span>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49758288"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49759072"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49817600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49817600" class="para"><sup class="para">[171] </sup></a>
+ Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>”</span> Pew
Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #46</a>.
The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that 37 million
Americans had downloaded music files from the Internet by early 2001.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41551952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41551952" class="para"><sup class="para">[172] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49753184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49753184" class="para"><sup class="para">[172] </sup></a>
-Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
+Alex Pham, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003, Business.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41623984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41623984" class="para"><sup class="para">[173] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49825808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49825808" class="para"><sup class="para">[173] </sup></a>
-Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
-Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81, no. 2 (1991): 242.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41626272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41626272" class="para"><sup class="para">[174] </sup></a>
+Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
+Prohibition,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81, no. 2 (1991): 242.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49828096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49828096" class="para"><sup class="para">[174] </sup></a>
National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government
Reform Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of
John P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41627600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41627600" class="para"><sup class="para">[175] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49829424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49829424" class="para"><sup class="para">[175] </sup></a>
-See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
-Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36 (1998): 818 (survey of
+See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Tax
+Compliance,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36 (1998): 818 (survey of
compliance literature).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41666736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41666736" class="para"><sup class="para">[176] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49868576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49868576" class="para"><sup class="para">[176] </sup></a>
-See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
-Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Worried Parents
+See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
+Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>”</span>
+<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Worried Parents
Pull Plug on File <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Stealing</span>’</span>; With the Music Industry Cracking Down on
File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs to Avoid
-Being Sued,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson
-Graham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Sues Parents,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15 September
-2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No Snoop
-Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is
-Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41675088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41675088" class="para"><sup class="para">[177] </sup></a>
-
-See <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
-Some Methods Used,</span>»</span> CNN.com, available at
+Being Sued,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson
+Graham, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Recording Industry Sues Parents,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15 September
+2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No Snoop
+Fan, Either,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Is
+Brianna a Criminal?</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49876992" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49876992" class="para"><sup class="para">[177] </sup></a>
+
+See <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
+Some Methods Used,</span>”</span> CNN.com, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41679808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41679808" class="para"><sup class="para">[178] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49881648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49881648" class="para"><sup class="para">[178] </sup></a>
-See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four
+See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,</span>”</span>
+<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Four
Students Sued over Music Sites; Industry Group Targets File Sharing at
-Colleges,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth Armstrong,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Students <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>’</span> at Their Own Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Christian Science
-Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20; Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music
+Colleges,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth Armstrong,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Students <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>’</span> at Their Own Risk,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Christian Science
+Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20; Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Music
Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola; Two Students Names Are Handed Over;
-Lawsuit Possible,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA
-Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Internet News</em>, 30 January
+Lawsuit Possible,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA
+Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Internet News</em>, 30 January
2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#48</a>; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman
+#48</a>; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman
Orientation This Fall to Include Record Industry Warnings Against File
-Sharing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
-Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26 September 2000, 3D.
+Sharing,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
+Are Weapons at Universities,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26 September 2000, 3D.
</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Part IV. Balances</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>So here's</strong></span> the picture: You're
standing at the side of the road. Your car is on fire. You are angry
gave birth to a hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build
a library of public domain works by scanning these works and making
them available for free.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1718592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9920688"></a><p>
Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain
works, though even a copy would have been of great value to people
across the world who can't get access to printed versions of these
accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred transformed Hawthorne, and
many others, into a form more accessible—technically
accessible—today.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1716688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9918784"></a><p>
Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same
source as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed into the
public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
animated cartoons, sometimes successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
(<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure Planet</em>). These are all
commercial publications of public domain works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1724048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41725360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9926144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49927456"></a><p>
The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of
public domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally
thousands of others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have
discovered this platform of expression and now use it to share works
that are, by law, free for the taking. This has produced what we might
-call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the
+call the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>”</span> which before the
Internet was limited to people with large egos or with political or
social causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of
individuals and groups dedicated to spreading culture
-generally.<a href="#ftn.idp41727984" class="footnote" name="idp41727984"><sup class="footnote">[179]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1736384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41737200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41738016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
+generally.<a href="#ftn.idp49930016" class="footnote" name="idp49930016"><sup class="footnote">[179]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9938432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49939248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49940064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's
collection of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to
pass into the public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in
his free public library. But Congress got in the way. As I described
-in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>, in 1998, for the eleventh time in forty years,
+in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a>, in 1998, for the eleventh time in forty years,
Congress extended the terms of existing copyrights—this time by
twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add any works more recent
than 1923 to his collection until 2019. Indeed, no copyrighted work
would pass into the public domain until that year (and not even then,
if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same period,
more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1743552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41744736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41746128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41746944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9945712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49946896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49948288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49949104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
(CTEA), enacted in memory of the congressman and former musician
Sonny Bono, who, his widow, Mary Bono, says, believed that
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be forever.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41752352" class="footnote" name="idp41752352"><sup class="footnote">[180]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1756928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41758304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41759424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41760256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41761088"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyrights should be forever.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp49954400" class="footnote" name="idp49954400"><sup class="footnote">[180]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9958976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49960352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49961472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49962304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49963136"></a><p>
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a
of publishing would make Eldred a felon—whether or not anyone
complained. This was a dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer
to undertake.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1762464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9964512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
constitutional
scholar whose first passion was constitutional
Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science …
by securing for limited Times to Authors … exclusive Right to
their … Writings. …
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1773488"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9975328"></a><p>
As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting
clause of Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause
granting power to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do
-something—for example, to regulate <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several
-states</span>»</span> or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">declare War.</span>»</span> But here, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something</span>»</span> is something quite
-specific—to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote … Progress</span>»</span>—through means that
-are also specific— by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e.,
-copyrights) <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1778528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41779872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41781136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41782512"></a><p>
+something—for example, to regulate <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">commerce among the several
+states</span>”</span> or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">declare War.</span>”</span> But here, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">something</span>”</span> is something quite
+specific—to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">promote … Progress</span>”</span>—through means that
+are also specific— by <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">securing</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>”</span> (i.e.,
+copyrights) <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9980368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49981648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49982912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49984288"></a><p>
In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of
extending existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me
about this was, if Congress has the power to extend existing terms,
-then the Constitution's requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> will have
+then the Constitution's requirement that terms be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited</span>”</span> will have
no practical effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire,
Congress has the power to extend its term, then Congress can achieve
-what the Constitution plainly forbids—perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the
-installment plan,</span>»</span> as Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
1785408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41786704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41788048"></a><p>
+what the Constitution plainly forbids—perpetual terms <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">on the
+installment plan,</span>”</span> as Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp4
9987184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49988544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp49989888"></a><p>
As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember
sitting late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious
consideration of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's
this gravy train going.
</p><p>
For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
-government. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Corruption</span>»</span> not in the sense that representatives are
-bribed. Rather, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">corruption</span>»</span> in the sense that the system induces the
+government. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Corruption</span>”</span> not in the sense that representatives are
+bribed. Rather, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">corruption</span>”</span> in the sense that the system induces the
beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to Congress
to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so much
Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
Your financial adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim
report:
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Next year,</span>»</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our copyrights in works A, B,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Next year,</span>”</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">our copyrights in works A, B,
and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no longer be
receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers of
-those works.</span>»</span>
+those works.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>»</span> she continues, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>”</span> she continues, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">that
could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to extend the
terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be extraordinarily
-valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>»</span>
+valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hope?</span>»</span> a fellow board member says. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can't we be doing something
-about it?</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hope?</span>”</span> a fellow board member says. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Can't we be doing something
+about it?</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We could contribute
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>”</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">We could contribute
to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure that
-they support the bill.</span>»</span>
+they support the bill.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want
-to know whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much
-would we get if this extension were passed?</span>»</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How
-much is it worth?</span>»</span>
+to know whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How much
+would we get if this extension were passed?</span>”</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How
+much is it worth?</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well,</span>»</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if you're confident that you will continue
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well,</span>”</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">if you're confident that you will continue
to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you use the
<span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">discount rate</span>’</span> that we use to evaluate estate investments (6 percent),
-then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>»</span>
+then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the
correct conclusion:
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
$1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
contributions
-would assure that the bill was passed?</span>»</span>
+would assure that the bill was passed?</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is worth it to you to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>”</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">It is worth it to you to
contribute
up to the <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">present value</span>’</span> of the income you expect from these
-copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>»</span>
+copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
You quickly get the point—you as the member of the board and, I
trust, you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every
</p><p>
In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono
Copyright
-Term Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
+Term Extension Act, this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">theory</span>”</span> about incentives was proved
real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House
received the maximum contribution from Disney's political action
committee; in the Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received
- contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp41808528" class="footnote" name="idp41808528"><sup class="footnote">[181]</sup></a>
+ contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp50010368" class="footnote" name="idp50010368"><sup class="footnote">[181]</sup></a>
The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent over
$1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
-than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp41810528" class="footnote" name="idp41810528"><sup class="footnote">[182]</sup></a>
+than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp50012368" class="footnote" name="idp50012368"><sup class="footnote">[182]</sup></a>
Disney is estimated to have
contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in the
-cycle.<a href="#ftn.idp41812640" class="footnote" name="idp41812640"><sup class="footnote">[183]</sup></a>
+cycle.<a href="#ftn.idp50014480" class="footnote" name="idp50014480"><sup class="footnote">[183]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious
pragmatic court committed to interpreting and applying the
Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the power
to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
-constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If
+constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited.</span>”</span> If
they could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and
again.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41817328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41818720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41819984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50019168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50020560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50021824"></a><p>
It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court
would not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to
the Supreme Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommerceinterstate"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinterstatecommerce"></a><p>
Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted
powers very broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the
-power to regulate only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> (aka
- <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interstate
-commerce</span>»</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to
+power to regulate only <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>”</span> (aka
+ <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">interstate
+commerce</span>”</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to
include the power to regulate any activity that merely affected
interstate
commerce.
activity, when considered on a national scale, affects interstate
commerce. A Constitution designed to limit Congress's power was
instead interpreted to impose no limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41830192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedstatesvlopez"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50032096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedstatesvlopez"></a><p>
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed
that in <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The government had
argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
commerce. The Supreme Court, the government said, was not in the
position to second-guess Congress.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments,</span>»</span>
-the Chief Justice wrote.<a href="#ftn.idp41835216" class="footnote" name="idp41835216"><sup class="footnote">[184]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments,</span>”</span>
+the Chief Justice wrote.<a href="#ftn.idp50037184" class="footnote" name="idp50037184"><sup class="footnote">[184]</sup></a>
If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to
Congress's power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five years
-later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<a href="#ftn.idp41838464" class="footnote" name="idp41838464"><sup class="footnote">[185]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41841152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41842400"></a><p>
+later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<a href="#ftn.idp50040432" class="footnote" name="idp50040432"><sup class="footnote">[185]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50043120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50044432"></a><p>
If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
-Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<a href="#ftn.idp41844096" class="footnote" name="idp41844096"><sup class="footnote">[186]</sup></a>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<a href="#ftn.idp50046128" class="footnote" name="idp50046128"><sup class="footnote">[186]</sup></a>
And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should
yield the conclusion that Congress
can't extend an existing term. If Congress could extend an existing
-term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power over
+term, then there would be no <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stopping point</span>”</span> to Congress's power over
terms, though the Constitution expressly states that there is such a
limit. Thus, the same principle applied to the power to grant
copyrights should entail that Congress is not allowed to extend the
term of existing copyrights.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41847264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressussupremecourtrestrainton2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41850480"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50049296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressussupremecourtrestrainton2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50052448"></a><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
stood for a principle. Many believed the decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for
politics—a conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states'
rights, using its power over Congress to advance its own personal
political preferences. But I rejected that view of the Supreme Court's
decision. Indeed, shortly after the decision, I wrote an article
-demonstrating the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fidelity</span>»</span> in such an interpretation of the
+demonstrating the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fidelity</span>”</span> in such an interpretation of the
Constitution. The idea that the Supreme Court decides cases based upon
its politics struck me as extraordinarily boring. I was not going to
devote my life to teaching constitutional law if these nine Justices
were going to be petty politicians.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41854128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41855424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41856496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41857616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41858720"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50056096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50057456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50058528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50059648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50060752"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Now let's pause</strong></span> for a moment to
make sure we understand what the argument in
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop
would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a
piracy that affects us all.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41860976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50063008"></a><p>
Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief
before the Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association
-wrote that the public domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41863872" class="footnote" name="idp41863872"><sup class="footnote">[187]</sup></a>
+wrote that the public domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp50065904" class="footnote" name="idp50065904"><sup class="footnote">[187]</sup></a>
But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our constitutional
system, our law requires it. Some may not like the Constitution's
requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a pirate's
have created the perfect storm for the public domain. Copyrights have
not expired, and will not expire, so long as Congress is free to be
bought to extend them again.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41867680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50069712"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>It is valuable</strong></span> copyrights that are
responsible for terms being extended. Mickey Mouse and
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too valuable for
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>”</span> These works are too valuable for
copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society from
copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.
Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from
2 percent of that work has any continuing commercial value. It was the
copyright holders for that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.
But the law and its effect were not limited to that 2 percent. The law
-extended the terms of copyright generally.<a href="#ftn.idp41871808" class="footnote" name="idp41871808"><sup class="footnote">[188]</sup></a>
+extended the terms of copyright generally.<a href="#ftn.idp50073840" class="footnote" name="idp50073840"><sup class="footnote">[188]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41874512"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50076544"></a><p>
Think practically about the consequence of this
extension—practically,
as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal
wanted to make available to the world in your iArchive project the
remaining
9,873. What would you have to do?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41876544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50078576"></a><p>
Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were
still under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are
not on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the
of such records—especially since the person who registered is
not necessarily the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>»</span> the
-apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
-copyright owners?</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>”</span> the
+apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
+copyright owners?</span>”</span>
</p><p>
Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span>
plenty of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on
digitized, and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the
consequence
for other creative works is much more dire.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41887040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41887856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41888672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50089136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50089952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50090768"></a><p>
Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios,
which owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a
direct beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were
currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made after 1923
would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee controls the
exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal of
-money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
+money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
-films.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41891040" class="footnote" name="idp41891040"><sup class="footnote">[189]</sup></a>
+films.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp50093136" class="footnote" name="idp50093136"><sup class="footnote">[189]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in
this culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme
high; digital technology has lowered these costs substantially. While
it cost more than $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white
film in 1993, it can now cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of
-8 mm film.<a href="#ftn.idp41896432" class="footnote" name="idp41896432"><sup class="footnote">[190]</sup></a>
+8 mm film.<a href="#ftn.idp50098448" class="footnote" name="idp50098448"><sup class="footnote">[190]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most
to be an extremely large number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights
to these films is exceptionally high.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
-copyright owner when she shows up?</span>»</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
+copyright owner when she shows up?</span>”</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when
she does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you
have made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
would outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old
films, Agee argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until
the copyright expires.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41904464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50106480"></a><p>
But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will
have expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and
nitrate stock dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal
value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a crucially important
legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright creates incentives
to produce and distribute the creative work. For that tiny fraction,
-the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free expression.</span>»</span>
+the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">engine of free expression.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the
creative work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've
related to the spread of knowledge. In this context, copyright is not
an engine of free expression. Copyright is a brake.
</p><p>
-You may well ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
+You may well ask, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.
So won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading
-culture widely?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41922464"></a><p>
+culture widely?</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50124352"></a><p>
Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes & Noble
offered to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that
eliminate the need for libraries? Only if you think that the only role
-of a library is to serve what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the market</span>»</span> would demand. But if you
+of a library is to serve what <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the market</span>”</span> would demand. But if you
think the role of a library is bigger than this—if you think its
role is to archive culture, whether there's a demand for any
particular bit of that culture or not—then we can't count on the
commercial market to do our library work for us.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41925760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50127648"></a><p>
I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We
should rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable
culture. My message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the
culture, 94 percent of the films, books, and music produced between
1923 and 1946 is not commercially available. However much you love the
commercial market, if access is a value, then 6 percent is a failure
-to provide that value.<a href="#ftn.idp41928176" class="footnote" name="idp41928176"><sup class="footnote">[191]</sup></a>
+to provide that value.<a href="#ftn.idp50130128" class="footnote" name="idp50130128"><sup class="footnote">[191]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit
asking the court to declare the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act unconstitutional. The two central claims that we made were (1)
that extending existing terms violated the Constitution's
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that extending terms
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited Times</span>”</span> requirement, and (2) that extending terms
by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
</p><p>
The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an
judges on that court. That dissent gave our claims life.
</p><p>
Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that
-copyrights be for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> only. His argument was as elegant as
+copyrights be for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited Times</span>”</span> only. His argument was as elegant as
it was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. The
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stopping point</span>”</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. The
power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to grant
-terms that are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued, the court had
-to interpret the term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> to give it meaning. And the best
+terms that are <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited.</span>”</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued, the court had
+to interpret the term <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited Times</span>”</span> to give it meaning. And the best
interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to deny Congress the
power to extend existing terms.
</p><p>
We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to
hear the case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for
important cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a
-whole, where the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41937056"></a><p>
+whole, where the court will sit <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">en banc</span>”</span> to hear the case.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50139008"></a><p>
The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.
This time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
been won. It should have been won. And no matter how hard I try to
retell this story to myself, I can never escape believing that my own
mistake lost it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41943344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjonesdayreavisandpoguejonesday"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50145296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjonesdayreavisandpoguejonesday"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The mistake</strong></span> was made early, though
it became obvious only at the very end. Our case had been supported
from the very beginning by an extraordinary lawyer, Geoffrey Stewart,
from its copyright-protectionist clients for supporting us. They
ignored this pressure (something that few law firms today would ever
do), and throughout the case, they gave it everything they could.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41947744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41948528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41949344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50149696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50150448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50151264"></a><p>
There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff
Stewart was the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became
quite involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view
about how this case would be won: We would only win, they repeatedly
-told me, if we could make the issue seem <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">important</span>»</span> to the Supreme
+told me, if we could make the issue seem <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">important</span>”</span> to the Supreme
Court. It had to seem as if dramatic harm were being done to free
-speech and free culture; otherwise, they would never vote against <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
-most powerful media companies in the world.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41951888"></a><p>
+speech and free culture; otherwise, they would never vote against <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the
+most powerful media companies in the world.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50153808"></a><p>
I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act
was a dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still
think it is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based
on how important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">true,</span>»</span> I thought, but it is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">wrong</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it just shouldn't be
-that way.</span>»</span> As I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span> as in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">true,</span>”</span> I thought, but it is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">wrong</span>”</span> as in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">it just shouldn't be
+that way.</span>”</span> As I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the
framers of our Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the
CTEA was unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful
interpretation
the widest range of credible critics—credible not because they
were rich and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated
that this law was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41960128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41960912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50162096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50162880"></a><p>
The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's
organization, Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the
very beginning. Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by
Congress. In November 1998, she wrote a stinging editorial attacking
the Republican Congress for allowing the law to pass. As she wrote,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why bills that create a financial windfall to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why bills that create a financial windfall to
narrow special interests slide easily through the intricate
legislative process, while bills that benefit the general public seem
-to get bogged down?</span>»</span> The answer, as the editorial documented, was the
+to get bogged down?</span>”</span> The answer, as the editorial documented, was the
power of money. Schlafly enumerated Disney's contributions to the key
players on the committees. It was money, not justice, that gave Mickey
Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control, Schlafly argued.
existing copyrights, there is no limit to Congress's power to set
terms. That strong conservative argument persuaded a strong
conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41964128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41964960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41965776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41966592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50166096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50166928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50167744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50168560"></a><p>
In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as
it gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free
exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the world's experts in the
history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there was a new brief
by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41969200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41970000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50170720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50171520"></a><p>
Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal
argument, there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and
archives, including the Internet Archive, the American Association of
Law Libraries, and the National Writers Union.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41971472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50172992"></a><p>
But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the
argument I've already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued
that unless the law was struck, a whole generation of American film
would disappear. The other made the economic argument absolutely
clear.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41972960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41973776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41974592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41975408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41976224"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50174480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50175296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50176112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50176928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50177744"></a><p>
This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including
five Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan,
Milton Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as
spectrum. Their conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible
claim that extending the terms of existing copyrights would do
anything to increase incentives to create. Such extensions were
-nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>—the fancy term economists use
+nothing more than <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>”</span>—the fancy term economists use
to describe special-interest legislation gone wild.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41978368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41979152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41979968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41980784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41981600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50179888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50180672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50181488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50182304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50183120"></a><p>
The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered
to write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with
us from the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we
who had advised us early on about a First Amendment strategy; and
finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41983840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41984624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41985744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50185360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50186144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50187264"></a><p>
Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give
media companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried
confidence in our argument.
</p><p>
The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of
-friends, as well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
+friends, as well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">friends</span>”</span> included
historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and
copyright holders.
that the copyright holders would defend the idea that they should
continue to have the right to control who did what with content they
wanted to control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
41989264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41990656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp41991472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50190784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50192176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50192992"></a><p>
Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was
better for the Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to
Dr. Seuss's work— better than allowing it to fall into the
public domain—because if this creativity were in the public
-domain, then people could use it to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create
-pornography.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41993216" class="footnote" name="idp41993216"><sup class="footnote">[192]</sup></a>
+domain, then people could use it to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create
+pornography.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp50194736" class="footnote" name="idp50194736"><sup class="footnote">[192]</sup></a>
That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">protection</span>”</span> of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example,
to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African
-Americans in the cast.<a href="#ftn.idp41996032" class="footnote" name="idp41996032"><sup class="footnote">[193]</sup></a>
+Americans in the cast.<a href="#ftn.idp50197552" class="footnote" name="idp50197552"><sup class="footnote">[193]</sup></a>
That's
their view of how this part of American culture should be controlled,
debate. When Congress decides to extend the term of existing
copyrights, Congress is making a choice about which speakers it will
favor. Famous and beloved copyright owners, such as the Gershwin
-estate and Dr. Seuss, come to Congress and say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Give us twenty years
+estate and Dr. Seuss, come to Congress and say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Give us twenty years
to control the speech about these icons of American culture. We'll do
-better with them than anyone else.</span>»</span> Congress of course likes to reward
+better with them than anyone else.</span>”</span> Congress of course likes to reward
the popular and famous by giving them what they want. But when
Congress gives people an exclusive right to speak in a certain way,
that's just what the First Amendment is traditionally meant to block.
<span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there
was little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said,
I set the strategy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42001824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42002640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42003456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42004272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42005088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42005904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42006720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42007552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42008368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42009488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusfactionsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50203344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50204160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50204976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50205792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50206608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50207424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50208240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50209072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50209888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50211008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusfactionsof"></a><p>
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we
-called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest.</span>»</span> The
+called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>”</span> The other we called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Rest.</span>”</span> The
Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor,
Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five had
been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line
of cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to
assure that Congress's powers had limits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42014640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50216208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
Congress's power. These four—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter,
Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer—had repeatedly argued that
the writings of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this
context to do as it wished, even if what Congress wished made little
sense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42019296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50220896"></a><p>
Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly
favored deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were
also very sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly
believed, there was a very important free speech argument against
these retrospective extensions.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42020736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42022128"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50222336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50223728"></a><p>
The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest
judges on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just
had consistently argued for limits in the context of intellectual property
generally. We were fairly confident he would recognize limits here.
</p><p>
-This analysis of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest</span>»</span> showed most clearly where our focus had to
+This analysis of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Rest</span>”</span> showed most clearly where our focus had to
be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open these
five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the
argument that Judge Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals,
that Congress's power must be interpreted so that its enumerated
powers have limits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42024912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42026368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42027152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42027968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42029088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42031760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50226448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50227904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50228688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50229504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50230624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50233280"></a><p>
This then was the core of our strategy—a strategy for which I am
responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
case, under the government's argument here, Congress would always have
unlimited power to extend existing terms. If anything was plain about
Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was that this power was
-supposed to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Our aim would be to get the Court to
+supposed to be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited.</span>”</span> Our aim would be to get the Court to
reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce
was limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright
beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say
that practice is unconstitutional.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42037312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50238832"></a><p>
There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We
certainly agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831
and in 1909. And of course, in 1962, Congress began extending
existing
terms regularly—eleven times in forty years.
</p><p>
-But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
+But this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">consistency</span>”</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
extended
existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.
It then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
<span class="strong"><strong>Oral argument</strong></span> was scheduled for the
first week in October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the
argument. During those two weeks, I was repeatedly
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had volunteered to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">mooted</span>”</span> by lawyers who had volunteered to
-help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically practice rounds, where
+help in the case. Such <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">moots</span>”</span> are basically practice rounds, where
wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
</p><p>
I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a
a clear line to follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots
were an effective practice; I found ways to take every question back to
this central idea.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42044112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42044928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42045744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42046560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50245632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50246448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50247264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50248080"></a><p>
One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the
skeptic. He had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor
General Charles Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme
Court. And in his review of the moot, he let his concern speak:
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see
the harm—passionately get them to see the harm. For if they
-don't see that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42049312"></a><p>
+don't see that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50250832"></a><p>
He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but
he didn't understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the
right thing—not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
where I intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's
power. This was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether
those enumerated powers had any limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42054544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50256064"></a><p>
Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.
The history was bothering her.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
upsetting previous extensions of time? I mean, this seems to be a
practice that began with the very first act.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
-of what the framers had in mind.</span>»</span> But my response again and again
+She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
+of what the framers had in mind.</span>”</span> But my response again and again
was to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in
assertion about impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a
structural limit necessary to assure that what would be an effectively
perpetual term not be permitted under the copyright laws.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42062400"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50263920"></a><p>
That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right
answer was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any
number of briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And
here was the place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a
softball; my answer was a swing and a miss.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42063904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50265424"></a><p>
The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> ruling,
and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
but for a statute that cannot be justified under ordinary First
Amendment analysis or under a proper reading of the limits built
into the Copyright Clause.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42068192"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50269712"></a><p>
Things went better for us when the government gave its argument;
for now the Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia
asked Solicitor General Olson,
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case was not even
cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did not
even appear in the Court's opinion.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42080736"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50282240"></a><p>
Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.
talk about the two together. There was therefore no principle that
followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case: In that context, Congress's power would
be limited, but in this context it would not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42085360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50286864"></a><p>
Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values
they would respect? By what right did they—the silent
five—get to select the part of the Constitution they would
recognize that however much I might hate a system in which the Court
gets to pick the constitutional values that it will respect, that is
the system we have.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42082800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50284304"></a><p>
Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's
opinion was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition
of intellectual property law should not support this unjustified
very same words in the Progress Clause could come to mean totally
different things depending upon whether the words were about patents
or copyrights. The Court let Justice Stevens's charge go unanswered.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42088704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50290144"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever
written, was external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of
percent of the value of a perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong,
that the actual number was 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either
way, the point was clear: If the Constitution said a term had to be
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> and the existing term was so long as to be effectively
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited,</span>”</span> and the existing term was so long as to be effectively
unlimited, then it was unconstitutional.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedstatesvlopez3"></a><p>
These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But
it is a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger
came quickly, but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two
sorts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42096416"></a><p>
-It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have been
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50297808"></a><p>
+It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>”</span> It would have been
one thing for them to have explained why the principle of <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't
apply in this case. That wouldn't have been a very convincing
argument, I don't believe, having read it made by others, and having
tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been an act of
integrity. These justices in particular have repeatedly said that the
-proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span>—to
+proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">originalism</span>”</span>—to
first understand the framers' text, interpreted in their context, in
light of the structure of the Constitution. That method had produced
-<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many other <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalist</span>»</span> rulings. Where was their
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span> now?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42100864"></a><p>
+<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many other <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">originalist</span>”</span> rulings. Where was their
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">originalism</span>”</span> now?
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50302256"></a><p>
Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain
what the framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they
did; they joined an opinion that never once tried to explain how the
myself.
For I had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of
the law as it is.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42104176"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50305504"></a><p>
Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for
idealism about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.
Most have a much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this
refused to stand before this audience and try to persuade with the
passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis on which a court
should decide the issue.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42108544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42109328"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50309024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50309808"></a><p>
Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it
have been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or
Kathleen Sullivan?
little reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had
stepped down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could
have persuaded.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42112080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50312560"></a><p>
And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this
-case was a mistake. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
+case was a mistake. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>”</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
issue should not be raised until it is.
</p><p>
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and
The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of
hilarious images—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from
my view of the case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced in figure
-<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. ">13.1</a>. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful
-and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit unfair. But the punch in the face
+<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. ">13.1</a>. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">powerful
+and wealthy</span>”</span> line is a bit unfair. But the punch in the face
felt exactly like that.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42120560"></a>
-</p><div class="figure-float" style="float: left;"><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 13.1. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="100%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/tom-the-dancing-bug.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42123776"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"></div><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50320928"></a>
+</p><div class="figure-float" style="float: left;"><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 13.1. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="100%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/tom-the-dancing-bug.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50324080"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"></div><p>
The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the
-quote from <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand experiment</span>»</span> we call the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey,
-I shrunk the Constitution.</span>»</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had
+quote from <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">grand experiment</span>”</span> we call the
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public domain</span>”</span> is over? When I can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Honey,
+I shrunk the Constitution.</span>”</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had
in our Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I
fathered, the Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A
better lawyer would have made them see differently.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp41727984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41727984" class="para"><sup class="para">[179] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp49930016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49930016" class="para"><sup class="para">[179] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41728720"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49930752"></a>
There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to
describe, but it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet
created was a world of noncommercial pornographers—people who
publishers after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the
world before the Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it
at least as important to protect the Eldreds of the world as to
-protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41752352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41752352" class="para"><sup class="para">[180] </sup></a>
+protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49954400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49954400" class="para"><sup class="para">[180] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41753056"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41753840"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41754656"></a>
-The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49955104"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49955888"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp49956704"></a>
+The full text is: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change
would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to
strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As
you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last
forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next
-Congress,</span>»</span> 144 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41808528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41808528" class="para"><sup class="para">[181] </sup></a>
- Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
-Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>»</span>
+Congress,</span>”</span> 144 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50010368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50010368" class="para"><sup class="para">[181] </sup></a>
+ Associated Press, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
+Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41810528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41810528" class="para"><sup class="para">[182] </sup></a>
- See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
-Age,</span>»</span> available at
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50012368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50012368" class="para"><sup class="para">[182] </sup></a>
+ See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
+Age,</span>”</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41812640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41812640" class="para"><sup class="para">[183] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50014480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50014480" class="para"><sup class="para">[183] </sup></a>
-Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>»</span>
+Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41835216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41835216" class="para"><sup class="para">[184] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50037184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50037184" class="para"><sup class="para">[184] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41838464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41838464" class="para"><sup class="para">[185] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50040432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50040432" class="para"><sup class="para">[185] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp41840064"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41844096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41844096" class="para"><sup class="para">[186] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50042032"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50046128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50046128" class="para"><sup class="para">[186] </sup></a>
If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle
carries from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in
notwithstanding. The same point is true in the context of the
Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's interpretation would
allow the government unending power to regulate copyrights—the
-limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span> notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41863872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41863872" class="para"><sup class="para">[187] </sup></a>
+limitation to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited times</span>”</span> notwithstanding.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50065904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50065904" class="para"><sup class="para">[187] </sup></a>
Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41871808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41871808" class="para"><sup class="para">[188] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50073840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50073840" class="para"><sup class="para">[188] </sup></a>
The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
Congressional
Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal ranges. See Brief
of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41891040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41891040" class="para"><sup class="para">[189] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50093136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50093136" class="para"><sup class="para">[189] </sup></a>
-See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies,
+See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,</span>”</span>
+<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David Streitfeld, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Classic Movies,
Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Striking
-Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41896432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41896432" class="para"><sup class="para">[190] </sup></a>
+Down Copyright Extension,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50098448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50098448" class="para"><sup class="para">[190] </sup></a>
Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae
Supporting the Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537
filed on behalf of Petitioners by the Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41928176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41928176" class="para"><sup class="para">[191] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50130128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50130128" class="para"><sup class="para">[191] </sup></a>
-Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright
-<span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Chaos</span>’</span> Theory,</span>»</span> 20 December 2002, available at
+Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright
+<span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Chaos</span>’</span> Theory,</span>”</span> 20 December 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41993216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41993216" class="para"><sup class="para">[192] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50194736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50194736" class="para"><sup class="para">[192] </sup></a>
Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537
U.S. (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41996032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41996032" class="para"><sup class="para">[193] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50197552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50197552" class="para"><sup class="para">[193] </sup></a>
-Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey
-Mouse Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March 1998, B7.
+Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey
+Mouse Joins the Fray,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March 1998, B7.
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Chapter 14. Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The day</strong></span>
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city from
Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and
wrote an op-ed piece.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42131600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50331856"></a><p>
It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head
the same advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is
important. And alternating with that command was the question of
-Justice Kennedy: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in
+Justice Kennedy: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in
science and the useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for
-that.</span>»</span> And so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle,
+that.</span>”</span> And so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle,
finally, I turned to an argument of politics.
</p><p>
<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I proposed a simple
he said early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
</p><p>
Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this
-is either the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>»</span> or the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright
-Term Deregulation Act.</span>»</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
+is either the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>”</span> or the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright
+Term Deregulation Act.</span>”</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except
blocking access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as
Congress allows for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for
everything else, let the content go.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42137408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42138224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42139040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50337664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50338480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50339296"></a><p>
The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed
it in an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters
expressing support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity,
copyright owners to ask permission to use or license their work. This
system would lower these costs, by establishing at least one registry
where copyright owners could be identified.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42142464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42143280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50342144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50342960"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were
removed in 1976, when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning
-any formal requirement before a copyright is granted.<a href="#ftn.idp42145840" class="footnote" name="idp42145840"><sup class="footnote">[194]</sup></a>
-The Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span> Natural
+any formal requirement before a copyright is granted.<a href="#ftn.idp50345520" class="footnote" name="idp50345520"><sup class="footnote">[194]</sup></a>
+The Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">natural right.</span>”</span> Natural
rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American
tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if their
rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is
absurd copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because
a world without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Walt Disney creativity</span>”</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to
know what's protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42151968"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50351648"></a><p>
The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in
Berlin in 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne
Convention in 1908, to require copyright terms of life plus fifty
should be a second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a
table, his rights over the table don't depend upon filing a form with
-the government. He has a property right over the table <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturally,</span>»</span>
+the government. He has a property right over the table <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">naturally,</span>”</span>
and he can assert that right against anyone who would steal the table,
whether or not he has informed the government of his ownership of the
table.
a world without formalities. Complex, expensive,
<span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions take their place.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42161536"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50361168"></a>
</p><p>
This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono
Act that we tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it
-didn't <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get.</span>»</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there is no
+didn't <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">get.</span>”</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there is no
way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
-terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">short,</span>»</span> then this
+terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">short,</span>”</span> then this
wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would
be presumptively uncontrolled.
upon historical data, that system would move up to 98 percent of
commercial work, commercial work that no longer had a commercial life,
into the public domain within fifty years. What do you think?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42169584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50369584"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>When Steve Forbes</strong></span> endorsed the
idea, some in Washington began to pay attention. Many people contacted
me pointing to representatives who might be willing to introduce the
Eldred Act. And I had a few who directly suggested that they might be
willing to take the first step.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42171744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50371744"></a><p>
One representative, Zoe Lofgren of California, went so far as to get
the bill drafted. The draft solved any problem with international
law. It imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners
possible. In May 2003, it looked as if the bill would be
-introduced. On May 16, I posted on the Eldred Act blog, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we are
-close.</span>»</span> There was a general reaction in the blog community that
+introduced. On May 16, I posted on the Eldred Act blog, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we are
+close.</span>”</span> There was a general reaction in the blog community that
something good might happen here.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42173808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50373808"></a><p>
But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and
the MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give
the view of the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti
Act. The reasons are embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their
thinness shows something clear about what this debate is really about.
</p><p>
-The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
-concept in the proposed bill</span>»</span>—that copyrights be renewed. That
-was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>»</span> had occurred
+The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
+concept in the proposed bill</span>”</span>—that copyrights be renewed. That
+was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>”</span> had occurred
long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
percentage of work covered by copyright law that is still commercially
valuable, but again this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut
off the extended term unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA
-argued that the bill would impose <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enormous</span>»</span> costs, since a
+argued that the bill would impose <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">enormous</span>”</span> costs, since a
registration system is not free. True enough, but those costs are
certainly less than the costs of clearing the rights for a copyright
whose owner is not known. Fifth, they worried about the risks if the
possible still to understand why the law favors Hollywood: Most people
don't recognize the reasons for limiting copyright terms; it is thus
still possible to see good faith within the resistance.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42183312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50383312"></a><p>
But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred
Act, then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked
selfinterest driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary
range of content that is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with
any copyright owner's desire to exercise continued control over his
-content. It would simply liberate what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dark
-Content</span>»</span> that fills archives around the world. So when the warriors
+content. It would simply liberate what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Dark
+Content</span>”</span> that fills archives around the world. So when the warriors
oppose a change like this, we should ask one simple question:
</p><p>
What does this industry really want?
</p><p>
The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side
is. The most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as
-its aim not the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> but the rejection of a
+its aim not the protection of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> but the rejection of a
tradition. Their aim is not simply to protect what is
theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to assure that all there is is what is
theirs</em></span>.
feared the competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public
domain connected to a public that now has the means to create with it
and to share its own creation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42190304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42191088"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50390304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50391088"></a><p>
What is hard to understand is why the public takes this view. It is
as if the law made airplanes trespassers. The MPAA stands with the
Causbys and demands that their remote and useless property rights be
block the progress of others.
</p><p>
All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it, and so
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it, and so
long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
-the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission
-society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
+the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permission
+society.</span>”</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp42145840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42145840" class="para"><sup class="para">[194] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp50345520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50345520" class="para"><sup class="para">[194] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42146544"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50346224"></a>
Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of
the author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act,
-every text of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
-exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be subject
-to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition against formalities is presently
+every text of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
+exercise</span>”</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">shall not be subject
+to any formality.</span>”</span> The prohibition against formalities is presently
embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of
African nation can afford the drugs for the vast majority of its
population:
$15,000 is thirty times the per capita gross national product of
-Zimbabwe. At these prices, the drugs are totally unavailable.<a href="#ftn.idp42208704" class="footnote" name="idp42208704"><sup class="footnote">[195]</sup></a>
+Zimbabwe. At these prices, the drugs are totally unavailable.<a href="#ftn.idp50408640" class="footnote" name="idp50408640"><sup class="footnote">[195]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsonpharmaceuticals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpharmaceuticalpatents"></a><p>
These prices are not high because the ingredients of the drugs are
importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in
another nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For
example, if the drug was sold in India, it could be imported into
-Africa from India. This is called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>»</span> and it is
+Africa from India. This is called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>”</span> and it is
generally permitted under international trade law and is specifically
-permitted within the European Union.<a href="#ftn.idp42223104" class="footnote" name="idp42223104"><sup class="footnote">[196]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42226384"></a><p>
+permitted within the European Union.<a href="#ftn.idp50423104" class="footnote" name="idp50423104"><sup class="footnote">[196]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50426384"></a><p>
However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more
than opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
-characterized it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa …
+characterized it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa …
not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel
-imports.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp41776880" class="footnote" name="idp41776880"><sup class="footnote">[197]</sup></a>
+imports.</span>”</span><a href="#ftn.idp49978720" class="footnote" name="idp49978720"><sup class="footnote">[197]</sup></a>
Through the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the
government asked South Africa to change the law—and to add
pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed South Africa for
patent— pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these governments,
with the 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.<a href="#ftn.idp42230240" class="footnote" name="idp42230240"><sup class="footnote">[198]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42233360"></a><p>
+effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<a href="#ftn.idp50430240" class="footnote" name="idp50430240"><sup class="footnote">[198]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50433360"></a><p>
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
information, which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an
argument
-about the sanctity of property.<a href="#ftn.idp42238000" class="footnote" name="idp42238000"><sup class="footnote">[199]</sup></a>
-It was because <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> would be violated that these
+about the sanctity of property.<a href="#ftn.idp50438000" class="footnote" name="idp50438000"><sup class="footnote">[199]</sup></a>
+It was because <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> would be violated that these
drugs should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the
-importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> that led these government actors
+importance of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> that led these government actors
to intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42245312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50445312"></a><p>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sanctity</span>»</span> of an
+and whose only real benefit would be to uphold the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sanctity</span>”</span> 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?
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsofdrugpatents"></a><p>
A different problem, however, could not be overcome. This is the
fear of the grandstanding politician who would call the presidents of
-the drug companies before a Senate or House hearing, and ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How
+the drug companies before a Senate or House hearing, and ask, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">How
is it you can sell this HIV drug in Africa for only $1 a pill, but the same
-drug would cost an American $1,500?</span>»</span> Because there is no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sound
-bite</span>»</span> answer to that question, its effect would be to induce regulation
+drug would cost an American $1,500?</span>”</span> Because there is no <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sound
+bite</span>”</span> answer to that question, its effect would be to induce regulation
of prices in America. The drug companies thus avoid this spiral by
avoiding the first step. They reinforce the idea that property should be
sacred. They adopt a rational strategy in an irrational context, with the
unintended consequence that perhaps millions die. And that rational
strategy thus becomes framed in terms of this ideal—the sanctity of an
-idea called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42256176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42257424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42258624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42259936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42261376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42262624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42263936"></a><p>
+idea called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50456288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50457536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50458736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50460048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50461488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50462736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50463984"></a><p>
So when the common sense of your child confronts you, what will
you say? When the common sense of a generation finally revolts
against what we have done, how will we justify what we have done?
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42267008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42268352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42269696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50467056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50468400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50469744"></a><p>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42271216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50471264"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>A simple idea</strong></span> 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
does not yet see what there could be to revolt about. The extremism
that now dominates this debate fits with ideas that seem natural, and
that fit is reinforced by the RCAs of our day. They wage a frantic war
-to fight <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> and devastate a culture for creativity. They defend
-the idea of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> while transforming real creators into
+to fight <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> and devastate a culture for creativity. They defend
+the idea of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property,</span>”</span> while transforming real creators into
modern-day sharecroppers. They are insulted by the idea that rights
should be balanced, even though each of the major players in this
content war was itself a beneficiary of a more balanced ideal. The
hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even
noticed. Powerful lobbies, complex issues, and MTV attention spans
-produce the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfect storm</span>»</span> for free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42277712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42278528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42281232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42282336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42283168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42284000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42284832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42285904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42286704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42289184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42290000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42290832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
+produce the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">perfect storm</span>”</span> for free culture.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50477760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50478576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50481392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50482496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50483280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50484112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50484944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50486048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50486880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50489360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50490176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50491008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In August 2003</strong></span>, a fight broke out
in the United States about a decision by the World Intellectual
-Property Organization to cancel a meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp42294304" class="footnote" name="idp42294304"><sup class="footnote">[200]</sup></a>
+Property Organization to cancel a meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp50494432" class="footnote" name="idp50494432"><sup class="footnote">[200]</sup></a>
At the request of a wide range of interests, WIPO had decided to hold
-a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
-goods.</span>»</span> These are projects that have been successful in producing
+a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
+goods.</span>”</span> 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
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and free software.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42304464"></a><p>
+in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source and free software.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50504592"></a><p>
The aim of the meeting was to consider this wide range of projects
from one common perspective: that none of these projects relied upon
intellectual property extremism. Instead, in all of them, intellectual
property was balanced by agreements to keep access open or to impose
limitations on the way in which proprietary claims might be used.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceininternationaldebateonintellectualproperty"></a><p>
-From the perspective of this book, then, the conference was ideal.<a href="#ftn.idp42308688" class="footnote" name="idp42308688"><sup class="footnote">[201]</sup></a>
+From the perspective of this book, then, the conference was ideal.<a href="#ftn.idp50508848" class="footnote" name="idp50508848"><sup class="footnote">[201]</sup></a>
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
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Information Society</span>»</span> unless one also talked about the
+talk about an <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Information Society</span>”</span> 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
</p><p>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create
-public goods</span>»</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42315232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42316624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42318064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42320944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
+thus the meeting about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create
+public goods</span>”</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50515392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50516848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50518224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50521104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
But there is one project within that list that is highly
-controversial, at least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source
-and free software.</span>»</span> Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of
+controversial, at least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source
+and free software.</span>”</span> 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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>»</span> for their own internal uses.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42325424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42326528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42327360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42328176"></a><p>
+rather than <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>”</span> for their own internal uses.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50525536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50526640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50527472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50528288"></a><p>
I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to
make clear that the distinction is not between commercial and
noncommercial software. There are many important companies that depend
fundamentally upon open source and free software, IBM being the most
prominent. IBM is increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux
-operating system, the most famous bit of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free software</span>»</span>—and IBM
-is emphatically a commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and
-free software</span>»</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead,
+operating system, the most famous bit of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free software</span>”</span>—and IBM
+is emphatically a commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source and
+free software</span>”</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead,
to support a mode of software development that is different from
-Microsoft's.<a href="#ftn.idp42330624" class="footnote" name="idp42330624"><sup class="footnote">[202]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42336352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42337840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42338672"></a><p>
-More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and free
-software</span>»</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Open source and free software</span>»</span>
+Microsoft's.<a href="#ftn.idp50530736" class="footnote" name="idp50530736"><sup class="footnote">[202]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50536464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50537952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50538784"></a><p>
+More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source and free
+software</span>”</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Open source and free software</span>”</span>
is not software in the public domain. Instead, like Microsoft's
software, the copyright owners of free and open source software insist
quite strongly that the terms of their software license be respected
software. If copyright did not govern software, then free software
could not impose the same kind of requirements on its adopters. It
thus depends upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42347072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50547216"></a><p>
It is therefore understandable that as a proprietary software
developer, Microsoft would oppose this WIPO meeting, and
understandable that it would use its lobbyists to get the United
States government to oppose it, as well. And indeed, that is just what
was reported to have happened. According to Jonathan Krim of the
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, Microsoft's lobbyists succeeded in getting the United
-States government to veto the meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp42349296" class="footnote" name="idp42349296"><sup class="footnote">[203]</sup></a>
+States government to veto the meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp50549440" class="footnote" name="idp50549440"><sup class="footnote">[203]</sup></a>
And without U.S. backing, the meeting was canceled.
</p><p>
I don't blame Microsoft for doing what it can to advance its own
its lobbying here, and nothing terribly surprising about the most
powerful software producer in the United States having succeeded in
its lobbying efforts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42352272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42353664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentandtrademarkofficeus"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50552416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50553744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentandtrademarkofficeus"></a><p>
What was surprising was the United States government's reason for
opposing the meeting. Again, as reported by Krim, Lois Boland, acting
director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark
-Office, explained that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open-source software runs counter to the
-mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.</span>»</span>
-She is quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose
+Office, explained that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open-source software runs counter to the
+mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.</span>”</span>
+She is quoted as saying, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose
to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the
-goals of WIPO.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42357760"></a><p>
+goals of WIPO.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50557760"></a><p>
These statements are astonishing on a number of levels.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42359456"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50559504"></a><p>
First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and
free software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property
-right called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>. Without it, restrictions imposed by those
-licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">runs counter</span>»</span> to the mission
+right called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span>. Without it, restrictions imposed by those
+licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">runs counter</span>”</span> to the mission
of promoting intellectual property rights reveals an extraordinary gap
in understanding—the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
first-year law student, but an embarrassment from a high government
official dealing with intellectual property issues.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42363072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42363776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42364880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42365696"></a><p>
-Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50563120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50563824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50564928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50565744"></a><p>
+Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">promote</span>”</span>
intellectual property maximally? As I had been scolded at the
preparatory conference of WSIS, WIPO is to consider not only how best
to protect intellectual property, but also what the best balance of
based on drugs whose patent has expired) contrary to the WIPO mission?
Does the public domain weaken intellectual property? Would it have
been better if the protocols of the Internet had been patented?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42368352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50568400"></a><p>
Third, even if one believed that the purpose of WIPO was to maximize
intellectual property rights, in our tradition, intellectual property
rights are held by individuals and corporations. They get to decide
what to do with those rights because, again, they are
-<span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> rights. If they want to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">waive</span>»</span> or
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">disclaim</span>»</span> their rights, that is, within our tradition, totally
+<span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> rights. If they want to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">waive</span>”</span> or
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">disclaim</span>”</span> their rights, that is, within our tradition, totally
appropriate. When Bill Gates gives away more than $20 billion to do
good in the world, that is not inconsistent with the objectives of the
property system. That is, on the contrary, just what a property system
to do with <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> property.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbolandlois"></a><p>
When Ms. Boland says that there is something wrong with a meeting
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights,</span>»</span> she's
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights,</span>”</span> she's
saying that WIPO has an interest in interfering with the choices of
the individuals who own intellectual property rights. That somehow,
-WIPO's objective should be to stop an individual from <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">waiving</span>»</span> or
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">disclaiming</span>»</span> an intellectual property right. That the interest of
+WIPO's objective should be to stop an individual from <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">waiving</span>”</span> or
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">disclaiming</span>”</span> an intellectual property right. That the interest of
WIPO is not just that intellectual property rights be maximized, but
that they also should be exercised in the most extreme and restrictive
way possible.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfeudalsystem"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpropertyrightsfeudalsystemof"></a><p>
There is a history of just such a property system that is well known
-in the Anglo-American tradition. It is called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feudalism.</span>»</span> Under
+in the Anglo-American tradition. It is called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">feudalism.</span>”</span> Under
feudalism, not only was property held by a relatively small number of
individuals and entities. And not only were the rights that ran with
that property powerful and extensive. But the feudal system had a
control to the free market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control
and concentration. It fought any freedom that might interfere with
that control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42380928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42381744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50580848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50581664"></a><p>
As Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite relate, this is precisely the
-choice we are now making about intellectual property.<a href="#ftn.idp42382960" class="footnote" name="idp42382960"><sup class="footnote">[204]</sup></a>
+choice we are now making about intellectual property.<a href="#ftn.idp50582880" class="footnote" name="idp50582880"><sup class="footnote">[204]</sup></a>
We will have an information society. That much is certain. Our only
choice now is whether that information society will be
<span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span> or <span class="emphasis"><em>feudal</em></span>. The trend is
toward the feudal.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42386240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42387488"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50586160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50587472"></a><p>
When this battle broke, I blogged it. A spirited debate within the
comment section ensued. Ms. Boland had a number of supporters who
tried to show why her comments made sense. But there was one comment
that was particularly depressing for me. An anonymous poster wrote,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42389744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42391184"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50589792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50591232"></a><p>
George, you misunderstand Lessig: He's only talking about the world as
-it should be (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government,
+it should be (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government,
should be to promote the right balance of intellectual property rights,
-not simply to promote intellectual property rights</span>»</span>), not as it is. If
+not simply to promote intellectual property rights</span>”</span>), not as it is. If
we were talking about the world as it is, then of course Boland didn't
say anything wrong. But in the world
mistake. I have no illusion about the extremism of our government,
whether Republican or Democrat. My only illusion apparently is about
whether our government should speak the truth or not.)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42395344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50595392"></a><p>
Obviously, however, the poster was not supporting that idea. Instead,
the poster was ridiculing the very idea that in the real world, the
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">goal</span>»</span> of a government should be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to promote the right balance</span>»</span> of
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">goal</span>”</span> of a government should be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to promote the right balance</span>”</span> of
intellectual property. That was obviously silly to him. And it
-obviously betrayed, he believed, my own silly utopianism. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Typical for
-an academic,</span>»</span> the poster might well have continued.
+obviously betrayed, he believed, my own silly utopianism. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Typical for
+an academic,</span>”</span> the poster might well have continued.
</p><p>
I understand criticism of academic utopianism. I think utopianism is
silly, too, and I'd be the first to poke fun at the absurdly
our own country's history).
</p><p>
But when it has become silly to suppose that the role of our
-government should be to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seek balance,</span>»</span> then count me with the silly,
+government should be to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">seek balance,</span>”</span> then count me with the silly,
for that means that this has become quite serious indeed. If it should
be obvious to everyone that the government does not seek balance, that
the government is simply the tool of the most powerful lobbyists, that
It might be crazy to argue that we should preserve a tradition that has
been part of our tradition for most of our history—free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42401776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50601824"></a><p>
If this is crazy, then let there be more crazies. Soon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42403440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42404256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42405072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50603488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50604304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50605120"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There are moments</strong></span> of hope in this
struggle. And moments that surprise. When the FCC was considering
relaxing ownership rules, which would thereby further increase the
It is therefore significant that so many would rally to demand
competition and increased diversity. Still, if the rally is understood
as being about bigness alone, it is not terribly surprising. We
-Americans have a long history of fighting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">big,</span>»</span> wisely or not. That
-we could be motivated to fight <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">big</span>»</span> again is not something new.
+Americans have a long history of fighting <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">big,</span>”</span> wisely or not. That
+we could be motivated to fight <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">big</span>”</span> again is not something new.
</p><p>
It would be something new, and something very important, if an equal
number could be rallied to fight the increasing extremism built within
-the idea of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span> Not because balance is alien to
+the idea of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>”</span> Not because balance is alien to
our tradition; indeed, as I've argued, balance is our tradition. But
because the muscle to think critically about the scope of anything
-called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> is not well exercised within this tradition anymore.
+called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> is not well exercised within this tradition anymore.
</p><p>
If we were Achilles, this would be our heel. This would be the place
of our tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42414352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50614400"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>As I write</strong></span> these final words, the
news is filled with stories about the RIAA lawsuits against almost
-three hundred individuals.<a href="#ftn.idp42416208" class="footnote" name="idp42416208"><sup class="footnote">[205]</sup></a>
-Eminem has just been sued for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> someone else's
-music.<a href="#ftn.idp42423328" class="footnote" name="idp42423328"><sup class="footnote">[206]</sup></a>
-The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from a Japanese author has just
-finished making the rounds.<a href="#ftn.idp42425952" class="footnote" name="idp42425952"><sup class="footnote">[207]</sup></a>
+three hundred individuals.<a href="#ftn.idp50616224" class="footnote" name="idp50616224"><sup class="footnote">[205]</sup></a>
+Eminem has just been sued for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sampling</span>”</span> someone else's
+music.<a href="#ftn.idp50623504" class="footnote" name="idp50623504"><sup class="footnote">[206]</sup></a>
+The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stealing</span>”</span> from a Japanese author has just
+finished making the rounds.<a href="#ftn.idp50626048" class="footnote" name="idp50626048"><sup class="footnote">[207]</sup></a>
An insider from Hollywood—who insists he must remain
-anonymous—reports <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
+anonymous—reports <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use
but can't because they can't begin to clear the rights. They've got
scores of kids who could do amazing things with the content, but it
-would take scores of lawyers to clean it first.</span>»</span> Congressmen are
+would take scores of lawyers to clean it first.</span>”</span> Congressmen are
talking about deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers
thought to violate the law. Universities are threatening expulsion for
kids who use a computer to share content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42429568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42430352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42431168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42431952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42432768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42433584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42434400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50629664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50630448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50631264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50632048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50632864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50633680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50634496"></a><p>
Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced
-that it will build a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>»</span> from which British citizens can
-download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<a href="#ftn.idp42436352" class="footnote" name="idp42436352"><sup class="footnote">[208]</sup></a>
+that it will build a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>”</span> from which British citizens can
+download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<a href="#ftn.idp50636400" class="footnote" name="idp50636400"><sup class="footnote">[208]</sup></a>
And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil, himself a folk hero
of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to release
content and free licenses in that Latin American
-country.<a href="#ftn.idp42438608" class="footnote" name="idp42438608"><sup class="footnote">[209]</sup></a>
+country.<a href="#ftn.idp50638656" class="footnote" name="idp50638656"><sup class="footnote">[209]</sup></a>
I've told a dark story. The truth is more mixed. A technology has
given us a new freedom. Slowly, some begin to understand that this
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp42208704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42208704" class="para"><sup class="para">[195] </sup></a>
- Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
-Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp50408640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50408640" class="para"><sup class="para">[195] </sup></a>
+ Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
+Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>”</span> (London, 2002),
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #55</a>. According to a World Health Organization press
release
issued 9 July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in
the developing world receive them—and half of them are in Brazil.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42223104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42223104" class="para"><sup class="para">[196] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50423104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50423104" class="para"><sup class="para">[196] </sup></a>
See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism: Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003), 37.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42224528"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42225312"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp41776880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp41776880" class="para"><sup class="para">[197] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50424528"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50425312"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp49978720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp49978720" class="para"><sup class="para">[197] </sup></a>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan
Resources, House Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess.,
Ser. No. 106-126 (22 July 1999), 150–57 (statement of James
Love).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42230240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42230240" class="para"><sup class="para">[198] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50430240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50430240" class="para"><sup class="para">[198] </sup></a>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan
Africa, a Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property
-Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp42238000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42238000" class="para"><sup class="para">[199] </sup></a>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp50438000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50438000" class="para"><sup class="para">[199] </sup></a>
-See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
-Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
+See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
+Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
May 1999, A1, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a>
-(<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">compulsory licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire
-system of intellectual property protection</span>»</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">AIDS
+(<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">compulsory licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire
+system of intellectual property protection</span>”</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">AIDS
and Developing Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential
-Medicines,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available at
+Medicines,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a>
-(describing U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical
+(describing U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical
Patents, and the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between
-Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
+Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42294304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42294304" class="para"><sup class="para">[200] </sup></a>
- Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>,
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50494432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50494432" class="para"><sup class="para">[200] </sup></a>
+ Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>,
August 2003, E1, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's
-Shift on <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Open Source</span>’</span> Meeting Spurs Stir,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Global Group's
+Shift on <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Open Source</span>’</span> Meeting Spurs Stir,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology
Daily</em>, 19 August 2003, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official
-Opposes <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Open Source</span>’</span> Talks at WIPO,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">U.S. Official
+Opposes <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">Open Source</span>’</span> Talks at WIPO,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology
Daily</em>, 19 August 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42308688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42308688" class="para"><sup class="para">[201] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50508848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50508848" class="para"><sup class="para">[201] </sup></a>
I should disclose that I was one of the people who asked WIPO for the
meeting.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42330624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42330624" class="para"><sup class="para">[202] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50530736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50530736" class="para"><sup class="para">[202] </sup></a>
Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
sophisticated. As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source</span>»</span> software or software in the public domain. Microsoft's
-principal opposition is to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free software</span>»</span> licensed under a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyleft</span>»</span>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source</span>”</span> software or software in the public domain. Microsoft's
+principal opposition is to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free software</span>”</span> licensed under a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyleft</span>”</span>
license, meaning a license that requires the licensee to adopt the
-same terms on any derivative work. See Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future
-of Software: Enabling the Marketplace to Decide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
+same terms on any derivative work. See Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Future
+of Software: Enabling the Marketplace to Decide,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
Toward Open Source Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint
Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, 2002), 69, available at
Model</em>, discussion at New York University Stern School of Business (3
May 2001), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42349296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42349296" class="para"><sup class="para">[203] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50549440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50549440" class="para"><sup class="para">[203] </sup></a>
-Krim, <span class="quote">
«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42382960" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42382960" class="para"><sup class="para">[204] </sup></a>
+Krim, <span class="quote">
“<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50582880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50582880" class="para"><sup class="para">[204] </sup></a>
See Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>, 210–20.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42230368"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42416208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42416208" class="para"><sup class="para">[205] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50430368"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50616224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50616224" class="para"><sup class="para">[205] </sup></a>
-John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>»</span> CNET News.com, September
+John Borland, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>”</span> CNET News.com, September
2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>; Paul
-R. La Monica, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers,</span>»</span> CNN/Money, 8 September
+R. La Monica, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers,</span>”</span> CNN/Money, 8 September
2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni
-Sangha and Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sued for a Song,
-N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9
-September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised
+Sangha and Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Sued for a Song,
+N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9
+September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised
Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among
-Defendants,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>, 10 September 2003,
+Defendants,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>, 10 September 2003,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42423328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42423328" class="para"><sup class="para">[206] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50623504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50623504" class="para"><sup class="para">[206] </sup></a>
-Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old Lady,</span>»</span>
+Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old Lady,</span>”</span>
mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42425952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42425952" class="para"><sup class="para">[207] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50626048" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50626048" class="para"><sup class="para">[207] </sup></a>
-Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
-Dylan Songs,</span>»</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at
+Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
+Dylan Songs,</span>”</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42436352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42436352" class="para"><sup class="para">[208] </sup></a>
- <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>»</span> BBC press release,
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50636400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50636400" class="para"><sup class="para">[208] </sup></a>
+ <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>”</span> BBC press release,
24 August 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42438608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42438608" class="para"><sup class="para">[209] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50638656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50638656" class="para"><sup class="para">[209] </sup></a>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>»</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6 August 2003,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>”</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6 August 2003,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #71</a>.
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Chapter . Afterword</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightvoluntaryreformeffortson"></a><p>
authors, musicians, filmmakers, scientists—all to tell this
story in their own words, and to tell their neighbors why this battle
is so important.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42448144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42449424"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50648256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50649536"></a><p>
Once this movement has its effect in the streets, it has some hope of
having an effect in Washington. We are still a democracy. What people
think matters. Not as much as it should, at least when an RCA stands
</p><p>
The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are
extremes in this debate, but the extremes are not all that there
-is. There are those who believe in maximal copyright—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights
-Reserved</span>»</span>— and those who reject copyright—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights
-Reserved.</span>»</span> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe that you should ask
-permission before you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No
-Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe you should be able to do with content
+is. There are those who believe in maximal copyright—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights
+Reserved</span>”</span>— and those who reject copyright—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No Rights
+Reserved.</span>”</span> The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>”</span> sorts believe that you should ask
+permission before you <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use</span>”</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No
+Rights Reserved</span>”</span> sorts believe you should be able to do with content
as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetinitialfreecharacterof"></a><p>
When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
-tilted in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> direction. Content could be copied
+tilted in the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>”</span> direction. Content could be copied
perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under
the
-original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>»</span> Content was
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were effectively
+original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>”</span> Content was
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taken</span>”</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were effectively
unprotected.
</p><p>
This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite
book. Through legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's
design, copyright holders have been able to change the essential
character of the environment of the original Internet. If the original
-architecture made the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>»</span> the
-future architecture will make the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights
-reserved.</span>»</span> The architecture and law that surround the Internet's
+architecture made the effective default <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>”</span> the
+future architecture will make the effective default <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">all rights
+reserved.</span>”</span> The architecture and law that surround the Internet's
design will increasingly produce an environment where all use of
-content requires permission. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> world that defines
-the Internet today will become a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span>
+content requires permission. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>”</span> world that defines
+the Internet today will become a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>”</span>
world that is a creator's nightmare.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42468064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42469456"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50668160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50669552"></a><p>
What's needed is a way to say something in the middle—neither
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights
-reserved</span>»</span>— and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>”</span> nor <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>”</span> but <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">some rights
+reserved</span>”</span>— 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.
about data about our lives that we broadcast to the world. If you
walked into a bookstore and browsed through some of the works of Karl
Marx, you didn't need to worry about explaining your browsing habits
-to your neighbors or boss. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> of your browsing habits was
+to your neighbors or boss. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span> of your browsing habits was
assured.
</p><p>
What made it assured?
</p><p>
Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter
-<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>, your
+<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a>, your
privacy was assured because of an inefficient architecture for
gathering data and hence a market constraint (cost) on anyone who
wanted to gather that data. If you were a suspected spy for North
us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly inefficient
architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust amount
of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
-(there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in many
+(there is no law protecting <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span> in public places), and in many
places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42485024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50685248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></a><p>
Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular
has become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you
browse the pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked
at. You know this because at the side of the page, there's a list of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recently viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">recently viewed</span>”</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net
and the function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the
-data than not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
+data than not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span>
protected by the friction disappears, too.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42489536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50689712"></a><p>
Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry
about libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that
-people should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
+people should have the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span> to browse in a library without the
government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties,
too), then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern
you. If it becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in
electronic spaces, then the friction-induced privacy of yesterday
disappears.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42491920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42493168"></a><p>
-It is this reality that explains the push of many to define <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50692096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50693408"></a><p>
+It is this reality that explains the push of many to define <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span>
on the Internet. It is the recognition that technology can remove what
friction before gave us that leads many to push for laws to do what
-friction did.<a href="#ftn.idp42495408" class="footnote" name="idp42495408"><sup class="footnote">[210]</sup></a>
+friction did.<a href="#ftn.idp50695584" class="footnote" name="idp50695584"><sup class="footnote">[210]</sup></a>
And whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern
that is important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a
kind of freedom that was passively provided before. A change in
technology now forces those who believe in privacy to affirmatively
act where, before, privacy was given by default.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42499424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42500704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42502096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42502912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50699600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50700880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50702208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50703024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
movement. When computers with software were first made available
commercially, the software—both the source code and the
economics of computing. And as he believed, if he did nothing about
it, then the freedom to change and share software would be
fundamentally weakened.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42512848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42514080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50712976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50714256"></a><p>
Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating
system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That
-was the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>
+was the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Linux</span>”</span>
kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating system.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42515872"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42516704"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50716048"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50716880"></a>
</p><p>
Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of
software that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free
that bind copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a
space where free software would survive. He was actively protecting
what before had been passively guaranteed.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42519376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42520768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50719552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50720880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates
with the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and
scientific journals are produced.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42529088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42530192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50729184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50730288"></a><p>
As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them
to libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
to charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme
Court opinion through their respective services.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42532848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50732944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive
for people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.
to flourish. And if there's nothing wrong with selling the public
domain, then there could be nothing wrong, in principle, with selling
access to material that is not in the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42536800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42538048"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50736896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50738144"></a><p>
But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data
was through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to
browse this data except by paying for a subscription?
public libraries begin to disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with
software, a changing technology and market shrink a freedom taken for
granted before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42543696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42544448"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50743792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50744592"></a><p>
This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to
restore the freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science
(PLoS), for example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making
available for free. PLoS also sells a print version of its work, but
the copyright for the print journal does not inhibit the right of
anyone to redistribute the work for free.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42546672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50746816"></a><p>
This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for
granted before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.
There's no doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional
distribution of content. But competition in our tradition is
presumptively a good—especially when it helps spread knowledge
and science.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42548208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42550192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42551440"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>1.2. Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50748352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50750336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50751584"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>1.2. Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the
increasing control effected through law and technology.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42556032"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50756160"></a><p>
Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit
corporation established in Massachusetts, but with its home at
Stanford University. Its aim is to build a layer of
Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal
that the person associated with the license believes in something
-different than the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All</span>»</span> or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No</span>»</span> extremes. Content is marked with the
+different than the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All</span>”</span> or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No</span>”</span> extremes. Content is marked with the
CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that
certain freedoms are given.
</p><p>
creator can choose a license that permits any use, so long as
attribution is given. She can choose a license that permits only
noncommercial use. She can choose a license that permits any use so
-long as the same freedoms are given to other uses (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share and share
-alike</span>»</span>). Or any use so long as no derivative use is made. Or any use
+long as the same freedoms are given to other uses (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">share and share
+alike</span>”</span>). Or any use so long as no derivative use is made. Or any use
at all within developing nations. Or any sampling use, so long as full
copies are not made. Or lastly, any educational use.
</p><p>
upon. Voluntary choice of individuals and creators will make this
content available. And that content will in turn enable us to rebuild
a public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42563824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50763632"></a><p>
This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And
of course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from
domain or in getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our
aim is to build a movement of consumers and producers
-of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)
+of content (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">content conducers,</span>”</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)
who help build the public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the
importance of the public domain to other creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42566288"></a><p>
-The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The aim is to
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50766096"></a><p>
+The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>”</span> sorts. The aim is to
complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture
are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
conclusion. The book's first printing was exhausted months before the
publisher had expected. This first novel of a science fiction author
was a total success.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42573600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42574416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50773456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50774272"></a><p>
The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content
was confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner,
used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as
well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42576864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42578176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42578992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42579808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42581136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50776720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50777968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50778784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50779600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50780992"></a><p>
These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the
Commons. There are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other
-reasons. Many who use the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling license</span>»</span> do so because anything
+reasons. Many who use the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sampling license</span>”</span> do so because anything
else would be hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are
free, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from
the licensed work; they are just not free to make full copies of the
art—they, too, sample from others. Because the
<span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high (Walter
Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
-sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span>
+sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">allow</span>”</span>
Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so
-high<a href="#ftn.idp42584352" class="footnote" name="idp42584352"><sup class="footnote">[211]</sup></a>),
+high<a href="#ftn.idp50784208" class="footnote" name="idp50784208"><sup class="footnote">[211]</sup></a>),
these artists release into the creative environment content
that others can build upon, so that their form of creativity might grow.
</p><p>
Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
license just because they want to express to others the importance of
balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is,
-you are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>
+you are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>”</span>
model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however
appropriate that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an
appropriate description of how most creators view the rights
associated with their content. The Creative Commons license expresses
-this notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Some Rights Reserved,</span>»</span> and gives many the chance to
+this notion of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Some Rights Reserved,</span>”</span> and gives many the chance to
say it to others.
</p><p>
In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over
make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights more
flexibly and cheaply. That difference, we believe, will enable
creativity to spread more easily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42591280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42592688"></a></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>2. Them, soon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50791136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50792544"></a></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>2. Them, soon</h2></div></div></div><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> not reclaim a free culture
by individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of
laws. We have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to
In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a
copyright, regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You
don't have to register. You don't even have to mark your content. The
-default is control, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> are banished.
+default is control, and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">formalities</span>”</span> are banished.
</p><p>
Why?
</p><p>
-As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a
+As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: “Property”">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a
good one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities
imposed a burden on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it
was progress when the law relaxed the formal requirements that a
past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span> of formalities forces
many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
</p><p>
-The law should therefore change this requirement<a href="#ftn.idp42605328" class="footnote" name="idp42605328"><sup class="footnote">[212]</sup></a>—but it
+The law should therefore change this requirement<a href="#ftn.idp50805232" class="footnote" name="idp50805232"><sup class="footnote">[212]</sup></a>—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.
doesn't follow that the government must actually administer the
role. Instead, we should be creating incentives for private parties to
serve the public, subject to standards that the government sets.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42609680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42611792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42612912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50809536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50811648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50812768"></a><p>
In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.
There are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.
Domain name owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their
failure need not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could
instead be that anyone has the right to use this work, until the
copyright owner complains and demonstrates that it is his work and he
-doesn't give permission.<a href="#ftn.idp42619456" class="footnote" name="idp42619456"><sup class="footnote">[213]</sup></a>
-The meaning of an unmarked work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone
-complains.</span>»</span> If someone does complain, then the obligation would be to
+doesn't give permission.<a href="#ftn.idp50819312" class="footnote" name="idp50819312"><sup class="footnote">[213]</sup></a>
+The meaning of an unmarked work would therefore be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use unless someone
+complains.</span>”</span> If someone does complain, then the obligation would be to
stop using the work in any new
work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing uses.
evolve. The best way to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the
Copyright Office's role to that of approving standards for marking
content that have been crafted elsewhere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42623392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50823248"></a><p>
For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The
Copyright Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could
five years. That seemed radical enough at the time. But after we lost
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a fourteen-year
-copyright term.<a href="#ftn.idp42632608" class="footnote" name="idp42632608"><sup class="footnote">[214]</sup></a>
+copyright term.<a href="#ftn.idp50832464" class="footnote" name="idp50832464"><sup class="footnote">[214]</sup></a>
Others have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
</p><p>
I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in
<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it simple:</em></span> The line between the public
domain and protected content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the
-fuzziness of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> and the distinction between <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ideas</span>»</span> and
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">expression.</span>»</span> That kind of law gives them lots of work. But our
+fuzziness of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use,</span>”</span> and the distinction between <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ideas</span>”</span> and
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">expression.</span>”</span> That kind of law gives them lots of work. But our
framers had a simpler idea in mind: protected versus unprotected. The
value of short terms is that there is little need to build exceptions
into copyright when the term itself is kept short. A clear and active
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone</span>»</span> makes the complexities of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> and
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>»</span> less necessary to navigate.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone</span>”</span> makes the complexities of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use</span>”</span> and
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>”</span> less necessary to navigate.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42643488"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50843344"></a><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be
renewed. Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner
continued. This need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason
this monopoly protection has to be granted for free. On average, it
takes ninety minutes for a veteran to apply for a
-pension.<a href="#ftn.idp42645648" class="footnote" name="idp42645648"><sup class="footnote">[215]</sup></a>
+pension.<a href="#ftn.idp50845504" class="footnote" name="idp50845504"><sup class="footnote">[215]</sup></a>
If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't
require authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a
single form.
the average term was just 32.2 years. We should be aiming for the
same.
</p><p>
-No doubt the extremists will call these ideas <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radical.</span>»</span> (After all, I
-call them <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extremists.</span>»</span>) But again, the term I recommended was longer
-than the term under Richard Nixon. How <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radical</span>»</span> can it be to ask for
+No doubt the extremists will call these ideas <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radical.</span>”</span> (After all, I
+call them <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">extremists.</span>”</span>) But again, the term I recommended was longer
+than the term under Richard Nixon. How <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radical</span>”</span> can it be to ask for
a more generous copyright law than Richard Nixon presided over?
-</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>2.3. 3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42655344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42656144"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>2.3. 3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50855200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50856000"></a><p>
As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally
granted property owners the right to control their property from the
ground to the heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property
challenge. It made no sense anymore to grant that much control, given
the emergence of that new technology.
</p><p>
-Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive
-right</span>»</span> to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings.</span>»</span> Congress has given authors an exclusive
-right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings</span>»</span> plus any derivative writings (made by
+Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive
+right</span>”</span> to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">their writings.</span>”</span> Congress has given authors an exclusive
+right to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">their writings</span>”</span> plus any derivative writings (made by
others) that are sufficiently close to the author's original
work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even
-though that movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42660528"></a><p>
+though that movie is not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">my writing.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50860384"></a><p>
Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it
expanded the exclusive right of copyright to include a right to
-control translations and dramatizations of a work.<a href="#ftn.idp42661792" class="footnote" name="idp42661792"><sup class="footnote">[216]</sup></a>
+control translations and dramatizations of a work.<a href="#ftn.idp50861648" class="footnote" name="idp50861648"><sup class="footnote">[216]</sup></a>
The courts have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation
ever since. This expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's
greatest judges, Judge Benjamin Kaplan.
So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a
large range of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense
the oddity of accepting such an enlargement of copyright while
-yet intoning the abracadabra of idea and expression.<a href="#ftn.idp42664240" class="footnote" name="idp42664240"><sup class="footnote">[217]</sup></a>
+yet intoning the abracadabra of idea and expression.<a href="#ftn.idp50864096" class="footnote" name="idp50864096"><sup class="footnote">[217]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
after the creative work is done.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42667888"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50867408"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative
rights be narrowed. Again, there are some cases in which derivative
rights are important. Those should be specified. But the law should
draw clear lines around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted
-material. When all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reuse</span>»</span> of creative material was within the control
+material. When all <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">reuse</span>”</span> of creative material was within the control
of businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate
the lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the
lines. Think about all the creative possibilities that digital
technologies enable; now imagine pouring molasses into the
machines. That's what this general requirement of permission does to
the creative process. Smothers it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42670720"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50870240"></a><p>
This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the
Clint Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for
foreseeable derivative rights—turning a book into a movie, or a
In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are
protected, and the presumption should be that other uses are not
protected. This is the reverse of the recommendation of my colleague
-Paul Goldstein.<a href="#ftn.idp42672848" class="footnote" name="idp42672848"><sup class="footnote">[218]</sup></a>
+Paul Goldstein.<a href="#ftn.idp50872368" class="footnote" name="idp50872368"><sup class="footnote">[218]</sup></a>
His view is that the law should be written so that
expanded protections follow expanded uses.
</p><p>
File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course,
that's not all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter
-<a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Chapter Five: «Piracy»">5</a>, they enable
+<a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Chapter Five: “Piracy”">5</a>, they enable
four different kinds of sharing:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
There are many who are using file-sharing networks to get access to
content that is not copyrighted or to get access that the copyright
owner plainly endorses.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42687920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42688992"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50887376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50888448"></a><p>
Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It
must avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The
eagerness with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover,
effect of sharing is actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is
significantly weakened.
</p><p>
-As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Chapter Five: «Piracy»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is
+As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Chapter Five: “Piracy”">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is
controversial. For the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume
the harm is real. I assume, in other words, that type A sharing is
significantly greater than type B, and is the dominant use of sharing
Rockies—you can instantaneously be connected to the
Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone
service, where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42694576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50894016"></a><p>
In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that
give you access to content on the fly—such as Internet radio,
content that is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here,
services charge money for the content they give access to. Already
cell-phone services in Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over
cell phones (enhanced with plugs for headphones). The Japanese are
-paying for this content even though <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the
-form of MP3s across the Web.<a href="#ftn.idp42699088" class="footnote" name="idp42699088"><sup class="footnote">[219]</sup></a>
+paying for this content even though <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> content is available in the
+form of MP3s across the Web.<a href="#ftn.idp50898528" class="footnote" name="idp50898528"><sup class="footnote">[219]</sup></a>
</p><p>
This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
-present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with file
+present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">problem</span>”</span> with file
sharing—to the extent there is a real problem—is a problem
that will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to
the Internet. And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy
-makers today to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">solving</span>»</span> this problem in light of a technology
+makers today to be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">solving</span>”</span> this problem in light of a technology
that will be gone tomorrow. The question should not be how to
regulate the Internet to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve
that problem away). The question instead should be how to assure that
this transition between twentieth-century models for doing business
and twenty-first-century technologies.
</p><p>
-The answer begins with recognizing that there are different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problems</span>»</span>
+The answer begins with recognizing that there are different <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">problems</span>”</span>
here to solve. Let's start with type D content—uncopyrighted
content or copyrighted content that the artist wants shared. The
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with this content is to make sure that the technology that
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">problem</span>”</span> with this content is to make sure that the technology that
would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered illegal. You can
think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom demands,
no doubt. But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in
order to eliminate kidnapping.
</p><p>
-Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem.</span>»</span> This is content that was,
+Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">problem.</span>”</span> This is content that was,
at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the
record label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be
unavailable because the work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the
law should be to facilitate the access to this content, ideally in a
way that returns something to the artist.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42706704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42707808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50906144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50907248"></a><p>
Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of
print, it may still be available in libraries and used book
stores. But libraries and used book stores don't pay the copyright
owner when someone reads or buys an out-of-print book. That makes
total sense, of course, since any other system would be so burdensome
as to eliminate the possibility of used book stores' existing. But
-from the author's perspective, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing</span>»</span> of his content without
+from the author's perspective, this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sharing</span>”</span> of his content without
his being compensated is less than ideal.
</p><p>
The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of
the music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial
-providers would be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share</span>»</span> that content,
+providers would be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">share</span>”</span> that content,
even though the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be
incidental to the trade; in a context where commercial publishing has
ended, trading music should be as free as trading books.
way to compensate those who are harmed.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpromisestokeepfisher"></a><p>
The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been
-floated by Harvard law professor William Fisher.<a href="#ftn.idp42718880" class="footnote" name="idp42718880"><sup class="footnote">[220]</sup></a>
+floated by Harvard law professor William Fisher.<a href="#ftn.idp50918800" class="footnote" name="idp50918800"><sup class="footnote">[220]</sup></a>
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
system, then it can be continued. If this form of protection is no
longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the old system of
controlling access.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42739888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42741200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42742320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42743136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50939856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50941168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50942288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50943104"></a><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim
is not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that
-the system supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span>
+the system supports the widest range of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>”</span>
possible. But the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the
other changes I described were accomplished—in particular, the
limits on derivative
uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was
allowed to do with the content itself.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42745920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42746704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42747520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42748336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50945888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50946672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50947488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50948304"></a><p>
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">harm</span>”</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation
would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating innovation. This
background system to compensate would also not need to interfere with
innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts predicted
-when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> by being
+when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> by being
easier than free is. This has proven correct: Apple has sold millions
of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a song. (At 99 cents,
the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price, though the labels
Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no doubt
there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
on-line.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42751488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42752304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42753408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42754240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42755344"></a><p>
-This competition has already occurred against the background of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50951456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50952272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50953376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50954208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50955312"></a><p>
+This competition has already occurred against the background of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span>
music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable television have known
for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for much more than
-that, there is nothing impossible at all about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>»</span>
+that, there is nothing impossible at all about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>”</span>
Indeed, if anything, the competition spurs the competitors to offer
new and better products. This is precisely what the competitive market
was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though piracy is rampant, movie
-theaters are often luxurious—with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first class</span>»</span> seats, and meals
+theaters are often luxurious—with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">first class</span>”</span> seats, and meals
served while you watch a movie—as they struggle and succeed in
-finding ways to compete with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span>
+finding ways to compete with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
This regime of competition, with a backstop to assure that artists
don't lose, would facilitate a great deal of innovation in the
while in this transition, taxing and compensating for type A
sharing, to the extent actual harm is demonstrated.
</p></li></ol></div><p>
-But what if <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> doesn't disappear? What if there is a competitive
+But what if <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> doesn't disappear? What if there is a competitive
market providing content at a low cost, but a significant number of
-consumers continue to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take</span>»</span> content for nothing? Should the law do
+consumers continue to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">take</span>”</span> content for nothing? Should the law do
something then?
</p><p>
Yes, it should. But, again, what it should do depends upon how 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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42773472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp42774288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50973136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp50973952"></a><p>
The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radical</span>»</span> by many within the profession, yet the positions that I am
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radical</span>”</span> 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.<a href="#ftn.idp42776624" class="footnote" name="idp42776624"><sup class="footnote">[221]</sup></a>
+Nimmer, thought it obvious.<a href="#ftn.idp50976288" class="footnote" name="idp50976288"><sup class="footnote">[221]</sup></a>
</p><p>
However, my criticism of the role that lawyers have played in this
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.<a href="#ftn.idp42779744" class="footnote" name="idp42779744"><sup class="footnote">[222]</sup></a>
+the legal system are slight.<a href="#ftn.idp50979408" class="footnote" name="idp50979408"><sup class="footnote">[222]</sup></a>
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.
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42788096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50987760"></a><p>
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
rarely test their power, or the power they promote, against this
-simple pragmatic question: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will it do good?</span>»</span> When challenged about
-the expanding reach of the law, the lawyer answers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why not?</span>»</span>
+simple pragmatic question: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Will it do good?</span>”</span> When challenged about
+the expanding reach of the law, the lawyer answers, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Why not?</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-We should ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why?</span>»</span> Show me why your regulation of culture is
+We should ask, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Why?</span>”</span> Show me why your regulation of culture is
needed. Show me how it does good. And until you can show me both,
keep your lawyers away.
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp42495408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42495408" class="para"><sup class="para">[210] </sup></a>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp50695584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50695584" class="para"><sup class="para">[210] </sup></a>
-See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
-Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology
+See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
+Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology
Law Review</em> 1 (2001): par. 6–18, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>
(describing examples in which technology defines privacy policy). See
also Jeffrey Rosen, <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom
in an Anxious Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs
-between technology and privacy).</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42584352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42584352" class="para"><sup class="para">[211] </sup></a>
+between technology and privacy).</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50784208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50784208" class="para"><sup class="para">[211] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42605328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42605328" class="para"><sup class="para">[212] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50805232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50805232" class="para"><sup class="para">[212] </sup></a>
The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be
-adopted by other countries as well.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42619456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42619456" class="para"><sup class="para">[213] </sup></a>
+adopted by other countries as well.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50819312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50819312" class="para"><sup class="para">[213] </sup></a>
There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not
solved here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated
system than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42632608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42632608" class="para"><sup class="para">[214] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50832464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50832464" class="para"><sup class="para">[214] </sup></a>
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308 (25 January 2003): 15,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308 (25 January 2003): 15,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42645648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42645648" class="para"><sup class="para">[215] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50845504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50845504" class="para"><sup class="para">[215] </sup></a>
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001),
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42661792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42661792" class="para"><sup class="para">[216] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50861648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50861648" class="para"><sup class="para">[216] </sup></a>
Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1967), 32.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42664240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42664240" class="para"><sup class="para">[217] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50864096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50864096" class="para"><sup class="para">[217] </sup></a>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42672848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42672848" class="para"><sup class="para">[218] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50872368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50872368" class="para"><sup class="para">[218] </sup></a>
Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial
Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 187–216.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42497104"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42699088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42699088" class="para"><sup class="para">[219] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50697280"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50898528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50898528" class="para"><sup class="para">[219] </sup></a>
-See, for example, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>»</span> The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3
+See, for example, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>”</span> The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3
April 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42718880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42718880" class="para"><sup class="para">[220] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50918800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50918800" class="para"><sup class="para">[220] </sup></a>
<a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a>
William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (last
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor
Netanel has proposed a related idea that would exempt noncommercial
sharing from the reach of copyright and would establish compensation
-to artists to balance any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Impose a
-Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing,</span>»</span> available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other proposals, see Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back
-Broadband?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip S. Corwin on
+to artists to balance any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Impose a
+Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing,</span>”</span> available at
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other proposals, see Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back
+Broadband?</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip S. Corwin on
behalf of Sharman Networks, A Letter to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26 February 2002,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual Property
Use Fee (IPUF)</em>, 3 March 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13 May
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13 May
2002, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right,</span>»</span>
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right,</span>”</span>
IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>; Declan
-McCullagh, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign,</span>»</span> CNET News.com, 27 August
+McCullagh, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign,</span>”</span> CNET News.com, 27 August
2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>.
Fisher's proposal is very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for
popular. As is typical with Stallman, his proposal predates the current
debate by about a decade. See
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42733712"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42734528"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42735344"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42736176"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42776624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42776624" class="para"><sup class="para">[221] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50933680"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50934496"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50935312"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50936144"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50976288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50976288" class="para"><sup class="para">[221] </sup></a>
-Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville B. Nimmer
+Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>”</span> (Melville B. Nimmer
Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48 (2001): 1057, 1069–70.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp42779744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp42779744" class="para"><sup class="para">[222] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp50979408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp50979408" class="para"><sup class="para">[222] </sup></a>
A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is
to be commended for his careful review of data about infringement,
J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy: The True Forces That
Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New York: Amacom, 2002), (reviewing his
original view but expressing skepticism) with Stan J. Liebowitz,
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?</span>»</span> working paper, June 2003,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?</span>”</span> working paper, June 2003,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>.
Liebowitz's careful analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the
effect of file-sharing technology. In my view, however, he
underestimates the costs of the legal system. See, for example,
<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp42778304"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp50977968"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Chapter . Notes</h1></div></div></div><p>
Throughout this text, there are references to links on the World Wide
Web. As anyone who has tried to use the Web knows, these links can be
sign. If the original link remains alive, you will be redirected to
that link. If the original link has disappeared, you will be
redirected to an appropriate reference for the material.
-</p><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="idp
42796480"></a>Index</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Marking</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Code (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>commerce, interstate, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court restraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>contracts, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>copyright, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also copyright law)</dt><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>voluntary reform efforts on, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>zero tolerance in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>two central goals of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also intellectual property rights)</dt><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also innovation)</dt><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>criminal justice system, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>CTEA, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998))</dt></dl></dd><dt>culture, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also free culture)</dt><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Cyber Rights (Godwin), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>DAT (digital audio tape), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>digital sharing within, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media concentration and, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>semiotic, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Democratic Party, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>domain names, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Godwin, Mike, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hollywood film industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also film industry)</dt></dl></dd><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also creativity)</dt><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>domain name registration on, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>interstate commerce, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp39885504">«Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue (Jones Day), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kahle, Brewster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, Anthony, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Monroe, Marilyn, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>music recordings (see peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing) (see recording industry)</dt><dd><dl><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>infringing material blocked by, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>range of content on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>recording industry tracking users of, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ownership consolidation of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>open-source software (see free software/open-source software (FS/OSS))</dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Patent and Trademark Office, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on film technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four types of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>infringement protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>transaction cost of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp39885504">«Property»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>ownership consolidation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Republican Party, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Scalia, Antonin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>semiotic democracy, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Betamax technology developed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>congressional actions restrained by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>factions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>legal murkiness on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomas, Clarence, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>tort reform, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>United States v. Lopez, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>United States v. Morrison, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>used record sales, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt>background of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Eldred Act opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>perpetual copyright term proposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web sites, domain name registration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Chapter . Acknowledgments</h1></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="idp
50996080"></a>Index</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Marking</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Code (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>commerce, interstate, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court restraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>contracts, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>copyright, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also copyright law)</dt><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>voluntary reform efforts on, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>zero tolerance in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>two central goals of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also intellectual property rights)</dt><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also innovation)</dt><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>criminal justice system, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>CTEA, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998))</dt></dl></dd><dt>culture, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also free culture)</dt><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Cyber Rights (Godwin), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>DAT (digital audio tape), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>digital sharing within, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>media concentration and, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>semiotic, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Democratic Party, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>domain names, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Godwin, Mike, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hollywood film industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also film industry)</dt></dl></dd><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: “Pirates”</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also creativity)</dt><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>domain name registration on, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>interstate commerce, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp48082672">“Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue (Jones Day), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kahle, Brewster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, Anthony, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Monroe, Marilyn, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>music recordings (see peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing) (see recording industry)</dt><dd><dl><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>infringing material blocked by, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>range of content on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>recording industry tracking users of, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ownership consolidation of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>open-source software (see free software/open-source software (FS/OSS))</dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Patent and Trademark Office, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on film technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four types of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>infringement protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>transaction cost of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: “Pirates”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp48082672">“Property”</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>ownership consolidation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Republican Party, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Scalia, Antonin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>semiotic democracy, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Betamax technology developed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>congressional actions restrained by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>factions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>legal murkiness on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomas, Clarence, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>tort reform, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>United States v. Lopez, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>United States v. Morrison, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>used record sales, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt>background of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Eldred Act opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>perpetual copyright term proposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web sites, domain name registration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Chapter . Acknowledgments</h1></div></div></div><p>
This book is the product of a long and as yet unsuccessful struggle that
began when I read of Eric Eldred's war to keep books free. Eldred's
work helped launch a movement, the free culture movement, and it is
to him that this book is dedicated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
42799408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
50999056"></a><p>
I received guidance in various places from friends and academics,
including Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner,
Mark Rose, and Kathleen Sullivan. And I received correction and
McMullen, Fred Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D. Rezende, Shabbir
Safdar, Saul Schleimer, Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker,
Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg, Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt
-Wasserman, Miljenko Williams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Wink,</span>»</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>»</span>
+Wasserman, Miljenko Williams, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Wink,</span>”</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>”</span>
and Richard Yanco. (I apologize if I have missed anyone; with
computers come glitches, and a crash of my e-mail system meant I lost
a bunch of great replies.)
This edition of <em class="citetitle">Free Culture</em> is the result of
three years of volunteer work. The idea came from a discussion I had
around ten years ago with a friend about the copyright debate in
-Norway, and how rarely the difficulties of long copyright made it into
-the public debate. A bit more than three years ago I finally had a
-look again at the idea and decided to publish a printed Norwegian
-Bokmål version of <em class="citetitle">Free Culture</em>, translated and
-formatted by volunteers. The new English edition is a by-product of
-the translation process.
+Norway, and how rarely the negative sides of stronger copyright
+regulation are mentioned in public. The summer of 2012 I finally had
+a look again at the idea and decided to publish a Norwegian Bokmål
+edition of <em class="citetitle">Free Culture</em>, translated and
+formatted by volunteers, as it describes the problem area very well.
+This new English edition is a by-product of this translation project.
</p><p>
Thanks to the Debian Edu / Skolelinux project, I already had
experience translating Docbook documents, and it seemed like a good
format for this book too. I found a Docbook formatted version of the
-book created by Hans Schou. Initial testing showed lots of Docbook
-validation errors in this version, but after some work I was able to
-transform it to PDF and EPUB. This was the start of the translation
-project. The Docbook file improved over time, and build rules were
-added to create both English and Bokmål versions. Finally, a call for
-volunteers went out to help me with the translation.
+book created by Hans Schou, and after some work I was able to
+transform it to into a book. This was the start of the translation
+project. I added a way to create both English and Bokmål versions,
+and called for volunteers to help me with the translation.
</p><p>
-Several people joined, and Anders Hagen Jarmund, Kirill Miazine, Odd
-Kleiva, Kjetil Kilhavn og Kjetil T. Homme assisted with the initial
-translation. Ralph Amissah and his SiSu version provided index
-entries. Morten Sickel and Alexander Alemayhu helped with the
-figures, redrawing some of the bitmaps as vector images. Wivi
-Reinholdtsen, Ingrid Yrvin, Johannes Larsen and Gisle Hannemyr did
-very valuable proofreading. Håkon Wium Lie helped me track down a
-good replacement font without usage restrictions instead of the one in
-the original PDF. The PDF typesetting is done using dblatex, which we
-selected over the alternatives thanks to the invaluable and quick help
-from Benoît Guillon and Andreas Hoenen. Thomas Gramstad donated ISBN
-numbers needed for distribution to book stores. Marc Jeanmougin from
-the inkscape community helped me replicate the original front cover.
-The support of Lawrence Lessig helped me to complete the
-project—I am very thankful he had the original screen shots
-still available after 11 years.
+Several people joined, and the following even helped with the English
+version. Ralph Amissah and his SiSu version provided index entries.
+Morten Sickel and Alexander Alemayhu helped with the figures,
+redrawing some of the bitmaps as vector images. Håkon Wium Lie helped
+me track down a good replacement font without usage restrictions
+instead of the one in the original edition. The typesetting is done
+using dblatex, which was selected over the alternatives thanks to the
+invaluable and quick help from Benoît Guillon and Andreas Hoenen.
+Thomas Gramstad helped me understand the ISBN system, so I could get
+the ISBN numbers needed make book store distribution possible. Marc
+Jeanmougin from the inkscape community helped me replicate the
+original front cover.
</p><p>
-At the end of the project, when the translation was done and it was
-time to publish, NUUG Foundation was asked and was willing to sponsor
-books to members of the Norwegian parliament and other decision
-makers.
+The support from Lawrence Lessig has been valuable, and I am very glad
+for his prompt and positive response. I am impressed he still had the
+original screen shots, more than eleven years after the book was
+published for the first time.
</p><p>
-In addition to these great contributors, I am very grateful to Mari
-and my family for their patience with me in this project.
+I am very grateful to Mari and the rest of my family for their
+patience with me in this project.
</p><p>
-— Petter Reinholdtsen, Oslo 2015-09-07
- </p></div><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp
42815216"></a>Index</h1></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Marking</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Code (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>commerce, interstate, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court restraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>contracts, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>copyright, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also copyright law)</dt><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>voluntary reform efforts on, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>zero tolerance in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>two central goals of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also intellectual property rights)</dt><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also innovation)</dt><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>criminal justice system, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>CTEA, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998))</dt></dl></dd><dt>culture, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also free culture)</dt><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Cyber Rights (Godwin), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>DAT (digital audio tape), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>digital sharing within, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media concentration and, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>semiotic, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Democratic Party, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>domain names, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Godwin, Mike, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hollywood film industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also film industry)</dt></dl></dd><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also creativity)</dt><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>domain name registration on, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>interstate commerce, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp39885504">«Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue (Jones Day), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kahle, Brewster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, Anthony, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Monroe, Marilyn, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>music recordings (see peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing) (see recording industry)</dt><dd><dl><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>infringing material blocked by, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>range of content on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>recording industry tracking users of, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ownership consolidation of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>open-source software (see free software/open-source software (FS/OSS))</dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Patent and Trademark Office, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on film technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four types of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>infringement protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>transaction cost of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp39885504">«Property»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>ownership consolidation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Republican Party, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Scalia, Antonin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>semiotic democracy, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Betamax technology developed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>congressional actions restrained by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>factions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>legal murkiness on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomas, Clarence, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>tort reform, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>United States v. Lopez, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>United States v. Morrison, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>used record sales, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt>background of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Eldred Act opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>perpetual copyright term proposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web sites, domain name registration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp38896912">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div><div class="colophon"><h1 class="title"><a name="idp42815472"></a></h1><p>
+– Petter Reinholdtsen, Oslo 2015-10-17
+ </p></div><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp
51007888"></a>Index</h1></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Marking</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Code (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>commerce, interstate, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court restraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>contracts, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>copyright, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also copyright law)</dt><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>voluntary reform efforts on, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>zero tolerance in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>two central goals of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also intellectual property rights)</dt><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also innovation)</dt><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>criminal justice system, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>CTEA, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998))</dt></dl></dd><dt>culture, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also free culture)</dt><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Cyber Rights (Godwin), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>DAT (digital audio tape), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>digital sharing within, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>media concentration and, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>semiotic, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Democratic Party, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>domain names, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Godwin, Mike, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hollywood film industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also film industry)</dt></dl></dd><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: “Pirates”</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also creativity)</dt><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>domain name registration on, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>interstate commerce, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp48082672">“Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue (Jones Day), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kahle, Brewster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, Anthony, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Monroe, Marilyn, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>music recordings (see peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing) (see recording industry)</dt><dd><dl><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>infringing material blocked by, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>range of content on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>recording industry tracking users of, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ownership consolidation of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>open-source software (see free software/open-source software (FS/OSS))</dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Patent and Trademark Office, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on film technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four types of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>infringement protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>transaction cost of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: “Pirates”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp48082672">“Property”</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>ownership consolidation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Republican Party, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Scalia, Antonin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>semiotic democracy, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Betamax technology developed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>congressional actions restrained by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>factions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>legal murkiness on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomas, Clarence, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>tort reform, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>United States v. Lopez, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>United States v. Morrison, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>used record sales, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt>background of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Eldred Act opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>perpetual copyright term proposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web sites, domain name registration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp47093648">“Piracy”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div><div class="colophon"><h1 class="title"><a name="idp51008144"></a></h1><p>
Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down
culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
</p><p>
</p><p>
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/" target="_top">http://free-culture.cc/</a>
</p><p>
-Published in English and Norwegian Bokmål 2015 by Petter Reinholdtsen
-with help from many volunteers. Typeset with dblatex using the font
-Crimson Text.
+Published in 2015. First published 2004 by The Penguin Press.
+</p><p>
+This English and Norwegian Bokmål edition was published by Petter
+Reinholdtsen with help from many volunteers.
</p><p>
-First published 2004 by The Penguin Press.
+Typeset with
+<a class="ulink" href="http://dblatex.sourceforge.net" target="_top">dblatex</a> using the
+font Crimson Text.
</p><p>
-Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
-Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January
+Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
+Perpetuity,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January
16, 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted
with permission.
</p><p>
</p><p>
(ACM CRCS) K.4.1
</p><p>
-Thomas Gramstad Forlag donated the ISBN numbers.
-</p><p>
Printing was sponsed by NUUG Foundation,
<a class="ulink" href="http://www.nuugfoundation.no/" target="_top">http://www.nuugfoundation.no/</a>.
</p><p>
given. For more information about the license visit
<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>.
</p><p>
-This book is a proof reading draft. Please visit the github URL above
-to get the latest version.
-</p><p>
-</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="isbn"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Format / MIME-type</th><th align="left">ISBN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">US Trade edition from lulu.com</td><td align="left">978-82-8067-010-6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">application/pdf</td><td align="left">978-82-8067-011-3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">application/epub+zip</td><td align="left">978-82-8067-012-0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">application/x-mobipocket-ebook</td><td align="left">978-82-8067-013-7</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="isbn"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Format / MIME-type</th><th align="left">ISBN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">US Trade edition from lulu.com</td><td align="left">978-82-690182-0-2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">application/pdf</td><td align="left">978-82-690182-1-9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">application/epub+zip</td><td align="left">978-82-690182-2-6</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
</p></div></div></body></html>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff