</copyright>
<legalnotice>
- <para>
+ <para>
+ <inlinemediaobject>
+ <imageobject>
+ <imagedata fileref="images/cc.png" width="100%" align="center"/>
+ </imageobject>
+ <imageobject>
+ <imagedata fileref="images/cc.svg" width="100%" align="center"/>
+ </imageobject>
+ <textobject>
+ <phrase>Creative Commons, Some rights reserved</phrase>
+ </textobject>
+ </inlinemediaobject>
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
This version of <citetitle>Free Culture</citetitle> 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, click the icon above, or visit
<ulink url="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</ulink>
- </para>
+ </para>
</legalnotice>
<abstract>
<title>ABOUT THE AUTHOR</title>
<para>
LAWRENCE LESSIG
-(<ulink url="http://www.lessig.org/">http://www.lessig.org</ulink>),
+(<ulink url="http://www.lessig.org">http://www.lessig.org</ulink>),
professor of law and a John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar
at Stanford Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet
and Society and is chairman of the Creative Commons
-(<ulink url="http://creativecommons.org/">http://creativecommons.org</ulink>).
+(<ulink url="http://creativecommons.org">http://creativecommons.org</ulink>).
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
To Eric Eldred—whose work first drew me to this cause, and for whom
it continues still.
</para>
-
-<para>
-<figure id="CreativeCommons">
-<title>Creative Commons, Some rights reserved</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/cc.png"></graphic>
-</figure>
-</para>
</dedication>
<toc id="toc"></toc>
</chapter>
<chapter id="mere-copyists">
<title>CHAPTER TWO: "Mere Copyists"</title>
-<indexterm><primary>Daguerre, Louis</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id="idxphotography" class='startofrange'>
+ <primary>photography</primary>
+</indexterm>
<para>
In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for
producing what we would call "photographs." Appropriately enough, they
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.)
+<indexterm><primary>Daguerre, Louis</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong.
taking of a picture from its developing. These were still plates of
glass, and thus it was still not a process within reach of most
amateurs.
+<indexterm><primary>Talbot, William</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<indexterm id="idxeastmangeorge" class='startofrange'>
<primary>Eastman, George</primary>
popular photography. Eastman's camera first went on sale in 1888; one
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
+percent, photographic equipment and material sales increased by 11
percent.<footnote><para>
<!-- f3 -->
Jenkins, 177.
learn.
</para>
<indexterm startref="idxeastmangeorge" class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref="idxphotography" class='endofrange'/>
<para>
These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is
increasingly so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has
<para>
These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars.
Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter
-10) has developed a powerful argument in favor of the "right to
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="property-i"/>)
+has developed a powerful argument in favor of the "right to
tinker" as it applies to computer science and to knowledge in
general.<footnote><para>
<!-- f22 -->
</para>
<para>
"No way to run a culture," as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in
-chapter 9, quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
+chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="collectors"/>,
+quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
</para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 61 -->
</chapter>
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.
+<indexterm><primary>GNU/Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm>
<primary>Microsoft</primary>
what—at least ordinarily. And if the law properly balances the
rights of the copyright owner with the rights of access, then
violating the law is still wrong.
+<indexterm><primary>GNU/Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
<para>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this
chapter, much of the "piracy" that file sharing enables is plainly
-legal and good. And like the piracy I described in chapter 4, much of
+legal and good. And like the piracy I described in chapter
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="pirates"/>, 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
</para>
<table id="t1">
-<title>Table</title>
+<title>Pattern of Court and Congress response</title>
<tgroup cols="4" align="char">
<thead>
<row>
</para>
<para>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw
-in chapter 6, the English limited the term of copyright so as to
-assure that a few would not exercise disproportionate control over
-culture by exercising disproportionate control over publishing. We can
-assume the framers followed the English for a similar purpose. Indeed,
-unlike the English, the framers reinforced that objective, by
-requiring that copyrights extend "to Authors" only.
+in chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="founders"/>,
+the English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few
+would not exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
+disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers
+followed the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the
+English, the framers reinforced that objective, by requiring that
+copyrights extend "to Authors" only.
</para>
<para>
The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
There's a famous story about a battle between the Marx Brothers
and Warner Brothers. The Marxes intended to make a parody of
<!-- PAGE BREAK 159 -->
-<citetitle>Casablanca</citetitle>. 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.<footnote><para>
+<citetitle>Casablanca</citetitle>. 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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f19 -->
See David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," <citetitle>Law and
Contemporary Problems</citetitle> 44 (1981): 172–73.
Warner Brothers that the Marx Brothers "were brothers long before
you were."<footnote><para>
<!-- f20 -->
-Ibid. See also Vaidhyanathan, <citetitle>Copyrights and Copywrongs</citetitle>, 1–3.
+Ibid. See also Vaidhyanathan, <citetitle>Copyrights and
+Copywrongs</citetitle>, 1–3.
<indexterm><primary>Vaidhyanathan, Siva</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
-The Marx Brothers therefore owned the word <citetitle>brothers</citetitle>,
-and if Warner Brothers insisted on trying to control <citetitle>Casablanca</citetitle>, then
-the Marx Brothers would insist on control over <citetitle>brothers</citetitle>.
+The Marx Brothers therefore owned the word
+<citetitle>brothers</citetitle>, and if Warner Brothers insisted on
+trying to control <citetitle>Casablanca</citetitle>, then the Marx
+Brothers would insist on control over <citetitle>brothers</citetitle>.
</para>
<para>
An absurd and hollow threat, of course, because Warner Brothers,
</para>
<indexterm startref="idxwarnerbrothers" class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref="idxmarxbrothers" class='endofrange'/>
+
+<indexterm id="idxadobeebookreader" class='startofrange'>
+ <primary>Adobe eBook Reader</primary>
+</indexterm>
<para>
Consider the life of my Adobe eBook Reader.
</para>
<para>
-An e-book is a book delivered in electronic form. An Adobe eBook
-is not a book that Adobe has published; Adobe simply produces the
-software that publishers use to deliver e-books. It provides the
- technology,
-and the publisher delivers the content by using the technology.
+An e-book is a book delivered in electronic form. An Adobe eBook is
+not a book that Adobe has published; Adobe simply produces the
+software that publishers use to deliver e-books. It provides the
+technology, and the publisher delivers the content by using the
+technology.
</para>
<para>
On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook
Reader.
</para>
<para>
-As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this
+As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this
e-book library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the
-public domain: <citetitle>Middlemarch</citetitle>, for example, is in the public domain.
-Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My
-own book <citetitle>The Future of Ideas</citetitle> is not yet within the public domain.
-Consider <citetitle>Middlemarch</citetitle> first. If you click on my e-book copy of
+public domain: <citetitle>Middlemarch</citetitle>, for example, is in
+the public domain. Some of them reproduce content that is not in the
+public domain: My own book <citetitle>The Future of Ideas</citetitle>
+is not yet within the public domain. Consider
+<citetitle>Middlemarch</citetitle> first. If you click on my e-book
+copy of
<!-- PAGE BREAK 160 -->
-<citetitle>Middlemarch</citetitle>, you'll see a fancy cover, and then a button at the bottom
-called Permissions.
+<citetitle>Middlemarch</citetitle>, you'll see a fancy cover, and then
+a button at the bottom called Permissions.
</para>
<figure id="fig-1611">
<title>Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader</title>
Wonderland</citetitle>. This wonderful book is in the public
domain. Yet when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the
following report:
+<indexterm><primary>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll)</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<figure id="fig-1641">
<title>List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in
</figure>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 164 -->
-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
- "permissions"
-indicated, not allowed to "read aloud"!
+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
+"permissions" indicated, not allowed to "read aloud"!
</para>
<para>
The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.
control. That incentive is understandable, yet what it creates is
often crazy.
</para>
+<indexterm startref="idxadobeebookreader" class='endofrange'/>
<para>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite
story of mine that makes the same point.
After Muni Rejects Ad," SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #32</ulink>. The ground
was that the criticism was "too controversial."
+<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Comcast</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Marijuana Policy Project</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>NBC</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>WJOA</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>WRC</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
</para>
<table id="t2">
-<title></title>
+<title>Law status in 1790</title>
<tgroup cols="3" align="char">
<thead>
<row>
</para>
<table id="t3">
-<title></title>
+<title>Law status at the end of ninetheenth centory</title>
<tgroup cols="3" align="char">
<thead>
<row>
</para>
<table id="t4">
-<title></title>
+<title>Law status in 1975</title>
<tgroup cols="3" align="char">
<thead>
<row>
</para>
<table id="t5">
-<title></title>
+<title>Law status now</title>
<tgroup cols="3" align="char">
<thead>
<row>
But I also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when
regulating (as it regulates just now) noncommercial copying and,
especially, noncommercial transformation. And increasingly, for the
-reasons sketched especially in chapters 7 and 8, one might well wonder
-whether it does more harm than good for commercial transformation.
-More commercial transformative work would be created if derivative
-rights were more sharply restricted.
+reasons sketched especially in chapters
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="recorders"/> and
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="transformers"/>, one
+might well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
+transformation. More commercial transformative work would be created
+if derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
</para>
<para>
The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of
</para>
<para>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the
-changing law. I described that change in detail in chapter 10. But an
+changing law. I described that change in detail in chapter
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="property-i"/>. 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
</para>
<para>
Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I
-described in chapter 7, in response to the story about documentary
-filmmaker Jon Else, I have been lectured again and again by lawyers
-who insist Else's use was fair use, and hence I am wrong to say that the
-law regulates such a use.
+described in chapter
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="recorders"/>, in
+response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have
+been lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was
+fair use, and hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a
+use.
</para>
<para>
<para>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory
<!-- PAGE BREAK 198 -->
-strategy that I described in chapter 10. 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
+strategy that I described in chapter <xref xrefstyle="select:
+labelnumber" linkend="property-i"/>. 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
"nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley—has been learned.
</para>
wrong, it is regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
</para>
<para>
-As I described in chapter 10, despite this feature of copyright as
-regulation, and subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica
-Litman in her book <citetitle>Digital Copyright</citetitle>,<footnote><para>
-<!-- f9. --> Jessica Litman, <citetitle>Digital Copyright</citetitle> (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books,
-2001).
+As I described in chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="property-i"/>, despite this feature of copyright as
+regulation, and subject to important qualifications outlined by
+Jessica Litman in her book <citetitle>Digital
+Copyright</citetitle>,<footnote><para>
+<!-- f9. -->
+Jessica Litman, <citetitle>Digital Copyright</citetitle> (Amherst,
+N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2001).
<indexterm><primary>Litman, Jessica</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
overall this history of copyright
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 204 -->
-As I described in chapter 4, when a radio station plays a song, the
-recording artist doesn't get paid for that "radio performance" unless
-he or she is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had
-recorded a version of "Happy Birthday"—to memorialize her famous
+As I described in chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="pirates"/>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording
+artist doesn't get paid for that "radio performance" unless he or she
+is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
+version of "Happy Birthday"—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 "Happy Birthday" would get some money, whereas
We pride ourselves on our "free society," 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.
+<indexterm><primary>alcohol prohibition</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
</para>
<para>
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's
-collection of poems <citetitle>New Hampshire</citetitle> 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 10,
-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.
+collection of poems <citetitle>New Hampshire</citetitle> 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 <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="property-i"/>, 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.
</para>
<para>
system, our law requires it. Some may not like the Constitution's
requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a pirate's
charter.
+<indexterm><primary>Nashville Songwriters Association</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on
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.
+<indexterm><primary>GNU/Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Eagle Forum</primary></indexterm>
</para>
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.
+<indexterm><primary>American Association of Law Libraries</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>National Writers Union</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the
<indexterm><primary>Berne Convention (1908)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 257 -->
-As I described in chapter 10, formalities in copyright law were
+As I described in chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="property-i"/>, formalities in copyright law were
removed in 1976, when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning
any formal requirement before a copyright is granted.<footnote><para>
<!-- f1. -->
<!-- PAGE BREAK 264 -->
</chapter>
</part>
-<part id="c-conclusion">
+<chapter id="c-conclusion">
<title>CONCLUSION</title>
-<partintro>
<para>
There are more than 35 million people with the AIDS virus
worldwide. Twenty-five million of them live in sub-Saharan Africa.
permitted within the European Union.<footnote>
<para>
<!-- f2. -->
-See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <citetitle>Who
+See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, <citetitle>Information Feudalism: Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy?</citetitle> (New York: The New Press, 2003), 37.
<indexterm><primary>Braithwaite, John</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Drahos, Peter</primary></indexterm>
Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It
included the Global Positioning System, which Ronald Reagan set free
in the early 1980s. And it included "open source and free software."
+<indexterm><primary>academic journals</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>PLoS (Public Library of Science)</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
May 2001), available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #63</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>GNU/Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 279 -->
</para>
-</partintro>
-<chapter><title></title><para></para></chapter>
-</part>
-<part id="c-afterword">
+</chapter>
+<chapter id="c-afterword">
<title>AFTERWORD</title>
-<partintro>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 280 -->
<!-- PAGE BREAK 283 -->
<para>
Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter
-10, your privacy was assured because of an inefficient architecture
-for gathering data and hence a market constraint (cost) on anyone who
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="property-i"/>, your
+privacy was assured because of an inefficient architecture for
+gathering data and hence a market constraint (cost) on anyone who
wanted to gather that data. If you were a suspected spy for North
Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your privacy would not be
assured. But that's because the CIA would (we hope) find it valuable
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 "Linux"
kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating system.
+<indexterm><primary>GNU/Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Linux operating system</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
with the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and
scientific journals are produced.
</para>
+<indexterm id="idxacademocjournals" class='startofrange'>
+ <primary>academic journals</primary>
+</indexterm>
<para>
As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them
presumptively a good—especially when it helps spread knowledge
and science.
</para>
+<indexterm startref="idxacademocjournals" class='endofrange'/>
</section>
<section id="oneidea">
Why?
</para>
<para>
-As I suggested in chapter 10, the motivation to abolish formalities
-was a good one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities
+As I suggested in chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="property-i"/>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a
+good one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities
imposed a burden on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it
was progress when the law relaxed the formal requirements that a
copyright owner must bear to protect and secure his work. Those
work, and to a performing artist to control copies of her performance.
</para>
<para>
-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 5, they enable four different kinds of sharing:
+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
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="piracy"/>, they enable
+four different kinds of sharing:
</para>
<orderedlist numeration="upperalpha">
<listitem><para>
significantly weakened.
</para>
<para>
-As I said in chapter 5, the actual harm caused by sharing is
+As I said in chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber"
+linkend="piracy"/>, 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
<!-- PAGE BREAK 312 -->
</section>
</section>
-</partintro>
-<chapter><title></title><para></para></chapter>
-</part>
+</chapter>
<chapter id="c-notes">
<title>NOTES</title>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 338 -->
</chapter>
+<index></index>
</book>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff