<indexterm><primary>American Graphophone Company</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>player pianos</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>sheet music</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws' class='startofrange'><primary>Congress, U.S.</primary><secondary>on copyright laws</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcongressusonrecordingindustry' class='startofrange'><primary>Congress, U.S.</primary><secondary>on recording industry</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>statutory licenses in</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin' class='startofrange'><primary>recording industry</primary><secondary>statutory license system in</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
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
Graphophone Company Association).
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>cover songs</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
<emphasis>and</emphasis> the recording artist. Congress amended the
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.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcompulsorylicense' class='startofrange'><primary>compulsory license</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxstatutorylicenses' class='startofrange'><primary>statutory licenses</primary></indexterm>
<para>
American law ordinarily calls this a <quote>compulsory license,</quote> but I will
refer to it as a <quote>statutory license.</quote> A statutory license is a license
of recordings so long as they paid the composer (or copyright holder)
the fee set by the statute.
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>Grisham, John</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm
id='idxgrishamjohn' class='startofrange'><primary>Grisham, John</primary></indexterm>
<para>
This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham
writes a novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if
Grisham.
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>Beatles</primary></indexterm>
<para>
But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And
thus, in effect, the law <emphasis>subsidizes</emphasis> the recording
in <citetitle>Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</citetitle>, E. Fulton Brylawski and
Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
</para></footnote>
-<indexterm><primary>Beatles</primary></indexterm>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcongressusonrecordingindustry' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxgrishamjohn' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
this report.</para></footnote>
</para>
</blockquote>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcompulsorylicense' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxstatutorylicenses' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their
creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
</section>
<section id="radio">
<title>Radio</title>
-<indexterm id='idxartistspayments1' class='startofrange'><primary>artists</primary><secondary>recording industry payments to</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand' class='startofrange'><primary>recording industry</primary><secondary>radio broadcast and</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto' class='startofrange'><primary>artists</primary><secondary>recording industry payments to</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Radio was also born of piracy.
</para>
<emphasis>pirate</emphasis> the value of Madonna's work without paying
her anything.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxmadonna' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
the choice for him or her, the law gives the radio station the right
to take something for nothing.
</para>
-<indexterm startref='idxartistspayments1' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand' class='endofrange'/>
</section>
<section id="cabletv">
<title>Cable TV</title>
<chapter label="6" id="founders">
<title>CHAPTER SIX: Founders</title>
<indexterm id='idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>English copyright law developed for</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>development of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawenglish' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>English</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin' class='startofrange'><primary>England, copyright laws developed in</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin' class='startofrange'><primary>United Kingdom</primary><secondary>history of copyright law in</secondary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Branagh, Kenneth</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Henry V</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Shakespeare, William</primary></indexterm>
copyright. Prices of the classics were thus kept high; competition to
produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
</para>
-<indexterm id='idxbritishparliament' class='startofrange'><primary>British Parliament</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>British Parliament</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightdurationof2' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>duration of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>renewability of</secondary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Statute of Anne (1710)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Now, there's something puzzling about the year 1774 to anyone who
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxromeoandjulietshakespeare' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxtonsonjacob' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxlawcommonvspositive' class='startofrange'><primary>law</primary><secondary>common vs. positive</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>positive law</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Licensing Act (1662)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a <quote>copyright</quote>
that the publishers, or <quote>Stationers,</quote> had an exclusive right to print
books.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightdurationof2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>common law</primary></indexterm>
<para>
There was no <emphasis>positive</emphasis> law, but that didn't mean
that there was no law. The Anglo-American legal tradition looks to
question after the licensing statutes had expired was whether the
common law protected a copyright, independent of any positive law.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxlawcommonvspositive' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>Conger</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxbritishparliament' class='startofrange'><primary>British Parliament</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Scottish publishers</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxstatuteofanne' class='startofrange'><primary>Statute of Anne (1710)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
This question was important to the publishers, or <quote>booksellers,</quote> as
they were called, because there was growing competition from foreign
ultimately
resulted in the Statute of Anne.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightasnarrowmonopolyright' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>as narrow monopoly right</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The Statute of Anne granted the author or <quote>proprietor</quote> of a book an
exclusive right to print that book. In an important limitation,
published by anyone. Or so the legislature is thought to have
believed.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxstatuteofanne' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
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
<emphasis>at all?</emphasis>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxbritishparliament' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>Shakespeare, William</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
For the booksellers, and the authors whom they represented, had a very
strong claim. Take <citetitle>Romeo and Juliet</citetitle> as an example: That play
Statute of Anne. Second, we have to see something important about
<quote>booksellers.</quote>
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>usage restrictions attached to</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
First, about copyright. In the last three hundred years, we have come
to apply the concept of <quote>copyright</quote> ever more broadly. But in 1710, it
distribute, the exclusive right to perform, and so on.
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Branagh, Kenneth</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Shakespeare, William</primary></indexterm>
<para>
So, for example, even if the copyright to Shakespeare's works were
perpetual, all that would have meant under the original meaning of the
right to print—no less, of course, but also no more.
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Henry VIII, King of England</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxmonopolycopyrightas' class='startofrange'><primary>monopoly, copyright as</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Statute of Monopolies (1656)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British.
only so long as it benefited society. The British saw the harms from
specialinterest favors; they passed a law to stop them.
</para>
-<indexterm id='idxbooksellers' class='startofrange'><primary>booksellers, English</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Milton, John</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxbooksellersenglish' class='startofrange'><primary>booksellers, English</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Conger</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightdurationof3' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>duration of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
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.
Property</citetitle> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Enlightenment</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>knowledge, freedom of</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Many believed the power the booksellers exercised over the spread of
knowledge was harming that spread, just at the time the Enlightenment
the time, and these powerful commercial interests were interfering
with that idea.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxbritishparliament2' class='startofrange'><primary>British Parliament</primary></indexterm>
<para>
To balance this power, Parliament decided to increase competition
among booksellers, and the simplest way to do that was to spread the
an indirect way to assure competition among publishers, and thus the
construction and spread of culture.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxstatuteofanne2' class='startofrange'><primary>Statute of Anne (1710)
+</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightinperpetuity' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>in perpetuity</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
When 1731 (1710 + 21) came along, however, the booksellers were
getting anxious. They saw the consequences of more competition, and
</para></footnote>
</para>
</blockquote>
+<indexterm startref='idxstatuteofanne2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightinperpetuity' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>common law</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>law</primary><secondary>common vs. positive</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>positive law</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Having failed in Parliament, the publishers turned to the courts in a
series of cases. Their argument was simple and direct: The Statute of
Statute of Anne copyright had expired. This, they argued, was the only
way to protect authors.
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>Patterson, Raymond</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm startref='idxbritishparliament2' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
This was a clever argument, and one that had the support of some of
the leading jurists of the day. It also displayed extraordinary
The bookseller didn't care squat for the rights of the author. His
concern was the monopoly profit that the author's work gave.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxdonaldsonalexander' class='startofrange'><primary>Donaldson, Alexander</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Patterson, Raymond</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxscottishpublishers' class='startofrange'><primary>Scottish publishers</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The booksellers' argument was not accepted without a fight.
The hero of this fight was a Scottish bookseller named Alexander
(London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxstatuteofanne3' class='startofrange'><primary>Statute of Anne (1710)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxconger' class='startofrange'><primary>Conger</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Boswell, James</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Erskine, Andrew</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Ibid., 93.
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcommonlaw' class='startofrange'><primary>common law</primary></indexterm>
<para>
When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in
Scotland, he responded by moving his shop to London, where he sold
rested his right to compete upon the ground that, under the Statute of
Anne, the works he was selling had passed out of protection.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxconger' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxmillarvtaylor' class='startofrange'><primary>Millar v. Taylor</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block <quote>piracy</quote> like
Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the <quote>pirates,</quote>
the most important early victory being <citetitle>Millar</citetitle> v. <citetitle>Taylor</citetitle>.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxdonaldsonalexander' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxscottishpublishers' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxthomsonjames' class='startofrange'><primary>Thomson, James</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightinperpetuity2' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>in perpetuity</secondary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Seasons, The (Thomson)</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Taylor, Robert</primary></indexterm>
<para>
rule thus effectively gave the booksellers a perpetual right to
control the publication of any book assigned to them.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcommonlaw' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxthomsonjames' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightinperpetuity2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxbritishparliament3' class='startofrange'><primary>British Parliament</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Considered as a matter of abstract justice—reasoning as if
justice were just a matter of logical deduction from first
Crown coveted to the free culture that we inherited.
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxdonaldsonalexander2' class='startofrange'><primary>Donaldson, Alexander</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxscottishpublishers2' class='startofrange'><primary>Scottish publishers</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Thomson, James</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Beckett, Thomas</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxhouseoflords' class='startofrange'><primary>House of Lords</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs' class='startofrange'><primary>Supreme Court, U.S.</primary><secondary>House of Lords vs.</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
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
Court. In February of 1774, that body had the chance to interpret the
meaning of Parliament's limits from sixty years before.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxmillarvtaylor' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxbritishparliament3' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxdonaldsonvbeckett' class='startofrange'><primary>Donaldson v. Beckett</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcommonlaw2' class='startofrange'><primary>common law</primary></indexterm>
<para>
As few legal cases ever do, <citetitle>Donaldson</citetitle> v. <citetitle>Beckett</citetitle> drew an
enormous amount of attention throughout Britain. Donaldson's lawyers
specified in the Statute of Anne expired, works that had been
protected by the statute were no longer protected.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxstatuteofanne3' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were
presented to the House and voted upon first by the <quote>law lords,</quote>
Justices in our Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the
House of Lords generally voted.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightinperpetuity3' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>in perpetuity</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof' class='startofrange'><primary>public domain</primary><secondary>English legal establishment of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The reports about the law lords' votes are mixed. On some counts,
it looks as if perpetual copyright prevailed. But there is no ambiguity
fixed for a limited time, after which the work protected by copyright
passed into the public domain.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Bacon, Francis</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Bunyan, John</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Johnson, Samuel</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Milton, John</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Shakespeare, William</primary></indexterm>
<para>
<quote>The public domain.</quote> Before the case of <citetitle>Donaldson</citetitle>
v. <citetitle>Beckett</citetitle>, there was no clear idea of a public domain in
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.
-<indexterm><primary>Bacon, Francis</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Bunyan, John</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Johnson, Samuel</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Milton, John</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Shakespeare, William</primary></indexterm>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxdonaldsonalexander2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxscottishpublishers2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcommonlaw2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightinperpetuity3' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>Scottish publishers</primary></indexterm>
<para>
It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords
fueled an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland,
Rose, 97.
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxhouseoflords' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
In London, however, at least among publishers, the reaction was
equally strong in the opposite direction. The <citetitle>Morning Chronicle</citetitle>
</para></footnote>
</para>
</blockquote>
+<indexterm><primary>House of Lords</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>free culture</primary><secondary>English legal establishment of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 105 -->
<quote>Ruined</quote> is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to
culture is available to people and how they get access to it are made
by the few despite the wishes of the many.
</para>
-<indexterm startref='idxbooksellers' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxbooksellersenglish' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>British Parliament</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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.
</para>
-<indexterm startref='idxbritishparliament' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawenglish' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightasnarrowmonopolyright' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxmonopolycopyrightas' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightdurationof3' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxdonaldsonvbeckett' class='endofrange'/>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 106 -->
</chapter>
<chapter label="7" id="recorders">
<title>CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</title>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawfairuseand' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>fair use and</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxdocumentaryfilm' class='startofrange'><primary>documentary film</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxelsejon' class='startofrange'><primary>Else, Jon</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxfairuseindocumentaryfilm' class='startofrange'><primary>fair use</primary><secondary>in documentary film</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxfilmsfairuseofcopyrightedmaterialin' class='startofrange'><primary>films</primary><secondary>fair use of copyrighted material in</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
<emphasis role='strong'>Jon Else</emphasis> is a filmmaker. He is best
known for his documentaries and has been very successful in spreading
he told me a story about the freedom to create with film in America
today.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxwagnerrichard' class='startofrange'><primary>Wagner, Richard</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>San Francisco Opera</primary></indexterm>
<para>
In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner's Ring
Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera.
During a show, they hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and
in the lighting loft. They make a perfect contrast to the art on the
stage.
-<indexterm><primary>San Francisco Opera</primary></indexterm>
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxsimpsonsthe' class='startofrange'><primary>Simpsons, The</primary></indexterm>
<para>
During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands
playing checkers. In one corner of the room was a television set.
it, this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special
about the scene.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxwagnerrichard' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>films</primary><secondary>multiple copyrights associated with</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of <citetitle>The Simpsons</citetitle>.
copyrighted material you need the permission of the copyright owner,
unless <quote>fair use</quote> or some other privilege applies.
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>Gracie Films</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxgraciefilms' class='startofrange'><primary>Gracie Films</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxgroeningmatt' class='startofrange'><primary>Groening, Matt</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Else called <citetitle>Simpsons</citetitle> creator Matt Groening's office to get permission.
Groening approved the shot. The shot was a four-and-a-halfsecond image
Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told Else to contact
Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>Gracie Films</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxfoxfilmcompany' class='startofrange'><primary>Fox (film company)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted
to be careful. So they told Else to contact Fox, Gracie's parent company.
room shot of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission,
Else said. He was just confirming the permission with Fox.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxgraciefilms' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
Then, as Else told me, <quote>two things happened. First we discovered
… that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at
to use this four-point-five seconds of … entirely unsolicited
<citetitle>Simpsons</citetitle> which was in the corner of the shot.</quote>
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>Herrera, Rebecca</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm startref='idxgroeningmatt' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxfoxfilmcompany' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxherrerarebecca' class='startofrange'><primary>Herrera, Rebecca</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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
rate, Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to
confirm what he had been told.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Wagner, Richard</primary></indexterm>
<para>
<quote>I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,</quote> he told me. <quote>Yes, you
have your facts straight,</quote> she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
to Herrera told Else later on, <quote>They don't give a shit. They just want
the money.</quote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxherrerarebecca' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm><primary>San Francisco Opera</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Day After Trinity, The</primary></indexterm>
<para>
replaced the shot with a clip from another film that he had worked on,
<citetitle>The Day After Trinity</citetitle>, from ten years before.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxfoxfilmcompany2' class='startofrange'><primary>Fox (film company)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxgroeningmatt2' class='startofrange'><primary>Groening, Matt</primary></indexterm>
<para>
There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the
copyright to <citetitle>The Simpsons</citetitle>. That copyright is their property. To use
episode is clearly a fair use of <citetitle>The Simpsons</citetitle>—and fair use does
not require the permission of anyone.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxfoxfilmcompany2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxgroeningmatt2' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 109 -->
So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon <quote>fair use.</quote> Here's his reply:
</para>
<blockquote>
+<indexterm id='idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst' class='startofrange'><primary>fair use</primary><secondary>legal intimidation tactics against</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The <citetitle>Simpsons</citetitle> fiasco was for me a great lesson in the gulf between what
lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what is crushingly
concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
</para>
<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
-<listitem><para>
+<listitem>
+<indexterm><primary>Errors and Omissions insurance</primary></indexterm>
+<para>
<!-- 1. -->
Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy
Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed
<quote>fair use</quote> can grind the application process to a halt.
</para></listitem>
<listitem>
-<indexterm><primary><citetitle>Star Wars</citetitle></primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxfoxfilmcompany3' class='startofrange'><primary>Fox (film company)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Groening, Matt</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Lucas, George</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary><citetitle>Star Wars</citetitle></primary></indexterm>
<para>
<!-- 2. -->
I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the first
would boil down to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper
pockets, me or them.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 110 -->
-</para></listitem>
+</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxfoxfilmcompany3' class='endofrange'/>
+</listitem>
<listitem><para>
<!-- 4. -->
The question of fair use usually comes up at the end of the
</para></listitem>
</orderedlist>
</blockquote>
+<indexterm startref='idxsimpsonsthe' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory therefore
supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture. But
matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or
not.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawfairuseand' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxdocumentaryfilm' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxelsejon' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxfairuseindocumentaryfilm' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxfilmsfairuseofcopyrightedmaterialin' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst' class='endofrange'/>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 111 -->
</chapter>
<chapter label="8" id="transformers">
<indexterm startref='idxlawasconstraintmodality2' class='endofrange'/>
<section id="hollywood">
<title>Why Hollywood Is Right</title>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>four regulatory modalities on</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just
how, Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxfreeculturefourmodalitiesofconstrainton' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxregulationfourmodalitiesof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>farming</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>steel industry</primary></indexterm>
<para>
This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to
crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to the government to bail
them out when imports (market) wipe out the U.S. steel industry.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>Brown, John Seely</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's
campaign to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a
changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and
opportunities for innovation and change.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>First Amendment to</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>First Amendment</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>speech, freedom of</primary><secondary>constitutional guarantee of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In the context of laws regulating speech—which include,
obviously, copyright law—that duty is even stronger. When the
<para>
Here's the metaphor that will capture the argument to follow.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxmllerpaulhermann' class='startofrange'><primary>Müller, Paul Hermann</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm id='idxddt' class='startofrange'><primary>DDT</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Müller, Paul Hermann</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxinsecticideenvironmentalconsequencesof' class='startofrange'><primary>insecticide, environmental consequences of</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxfarming' class='startofrange'><primary>farming</primary></indexterm>
<para>
In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss
chemist Paul Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work
important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Carson, Rachel</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Silent Sprint (Carson)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Silent Spring (Carson)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxenvironmentalism' class='startofrange'><primary>environmentalism</primary></indexterm>
<para>
But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <citetitle>Silent Spring</citetitle>, which argued that
DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having unintended
when considering the other, more environmentally friendly ways to
solve the problems that DDT was meant to solve.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxmllerpaulhermann' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm><primary>Boyle, James</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James
Boyle appeals when he argues that we need an <quote>environmentalism</quote> for
authors. It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we
should be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxfarming' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
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
generally missed, the net effect of this massive increase in protection
will be devastating to the environment for creativity.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
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.
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxddt' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxinsecticideenvironmentalconsequencesof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxenvironmentalism' class='endofrange'/>
</section>
<section id="beginnings">
<title>Beginnings</title>
+<indexterm><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>on creative property</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin' class='startofrange'><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>copyright purpose established in</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof' class='startofrange'><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>Progress Clause of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>constitutional purpose of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>duration of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2' class='startofrange'><primary>creative property</primary><secondary>constitutional tradition on</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxprogressclause' class='startofrange'><primary>Progress Clause</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>duration of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <quote>creative
property</quote> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcongressusinconstitutionalprogressclause' class='startofrange'><primary>Congress, U.S.</primary><secondary>in constitutional Progress Clause</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The power to establish <quote>creative property</quote> rights is granted to
Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very
purpose, and its purpose is a public one, not the purpose of enriching
publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcongressusinconstitutionalprogressclause' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>as protection of creators</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>history of American</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw
in chapter <xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="founders"/>,
English, the framers reinforced that objective, by requiring that
copyrights extend <quote>to Authors</quote> only.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Senate, U.S.</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>structural checks and balances of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>electoral college</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers
the constitutional frame, structured to prevent otherwise inevitable
concentrations of power.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxprogressclause' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call <quote>copyright</quote>
today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they ever
<quote>copyright</quote> in context: We need to see how it has changed in the 210
years since they first struck its design.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>four regulatory modalities on</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
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
</section>
<section id="lawduration">
<title>Law: Duration</title>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightdurationof4' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>duration of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5' class='startofrange'><primary>Congress, U.S.</primary><secondary>on copyright laws</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightact' class='startofrange'><primary>Copyright Act (1790)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>creative property</primary><secondary>common law protections of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin' class='startofrange'><primary>public domain</primary><secondary>balance of U.S. content in</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it
faced the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that
domain to reprint and distribute works.
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Statute of Anne (1710)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxlawfederalvsstate' class='startofrange'><primary>law</primary><secondary>federal vs. state</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law,
that the copyrights for all English works expired, a federal statute
meant that any state copyrights expired as well.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightrenewabilityof' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>renewability of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a
federal copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If
opt to renew the copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not
renew the copyright, his work passed into the public domain.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
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
with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen years. Copyright
Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightact' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxlawfederalvsstate' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
This system of renewal was a crucial part of the American system
of copyright. It assured that the maximum terms of copyright would be
<citetitle>University of Chicago Law Review</citetitle> 70 (2003): 471, 498–501, and
accompanying figures. </para></footnote>
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>books</primary><secondary>out of print</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm startref='idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm><primary>books</primary><secondary>resales of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>books</primary><secondary>out of print</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work
has an actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall
is to sell the books as used books; that use—because it does not
involve publication—is effectively free.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws6' class='startofrange'><primary>Congress, U.S.</primary><secondary>on copyright laws</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby' class='startofrange'><primary>Congress, U.S.</primary><secondary>copyright terms extended by</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>term extensions in</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28
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.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea' class='startofrange'><primary>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxpublicdomainfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin' class='startofrange'><primary>public domain</primary><secondary>future patents vs. future copyrights in</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress
And in 1998, in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress
extended the term of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>patents</primary><secondary>in public domain</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
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, zero copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue
of the expiration of a copyright term.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the
under protection would be those that had some continuing commercial
value.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998)</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>of natural authors vs. corporations</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>corporations</primary><secondary>copyright terms for</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For
all works created after 1978, there was only one copyright term—the
that terms be <quote>limited,</quote> we have no evidence that anything will limit
them.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxpublicdomainfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to
Posner, <quote>Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</quote> loc. cit.
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightdurationof4' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightrenewabilityof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws6' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin' class='endofrange'/>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 147 -->
</section>
<section id="lawscope">
<title>Law: Scope</title>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightscopeof' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>scope of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The <quote>scope</quote> 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.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>on republishing vs. transformation of original work</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof' class='startofrange'><primary>derivative works</primary><secondary>historical shift in copyright coverage of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <quote>maps,
charts, and books.</quote> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
more broadly, and protects works that are based in a significant way
on the initial creative work.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightmarkingof' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>marking of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxformalities' class='startofrange'><primary>formalities</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawregistrationrequirementof' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>registration requirement of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
works be deposited with the government before a copyright could be
secured.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible
understanding that for most works, no copyright was required. Again,
somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the
original author.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>European</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
All of these <quote>formalities</quote> were abolished in the American system when
we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no requirement
a ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a
copy available for others to copy.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightmarkingof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxformalities' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawregistrationrequirementof' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
Consider a practical example to understand the scope of these
differences.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightact2' class='startofrange'><primary>Copyright Act (1790)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who
actually copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you
regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative market in
the United States—publishers.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork2' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>on republishing vs. transformation of original work</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxderivativeworkspiracyvs3' class='startofrange'><primary>derivative works</primary><secondary>piracy vs.</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxpiracyderivativeworkvs3' class='startofrange'><primary>piracy</primary><secondary>derivative work vs.</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 149 -->
The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem
creative activities remained free, while the activities of publishers
were restrained.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightact2' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail,
right to your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings
and a large proportion of the writings inspired by them.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxderivativeworkspiracyvs3' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our
framers, though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this
</para></footnote>
These two different uses of my creative work are treated the same.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxpiracyderivativeworkvs3' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm><primary>Disney, Walt</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Mickey Mouse</primary></indexterm>
<para>
simply to make clear that this expansion is a significant change from
the rights originally granted.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightscopeof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork2' class='endofrange'/>
</section>
<section id="lawreach">
<title>Law and Architecture: Reach</title>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>copies as core issue of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawscopeof' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>scope of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users,
102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right.
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Valenti, Jack</primary><secondary>on creative property rights</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2' class='startofrange'><primary>creative property</primary><secondary>other property rights vs.</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 151 -->
<quote>Copies.</quote> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
law. More precisely, they should not <emphasis>always</emphasis> be
the trigger for copyright law.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
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
current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen,
by the legislators who enacted copyright law.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawscopeof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely
empty circle.
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxderivativeworkspiracyvs4' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxpiracyderivativeworkvs4' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxfairuse' class='startofrange'><primary>fair use</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>fair use and</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses
that remain unregulated because the law considers these <quote>fair uses.</quote>
<title>Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.</title>
<graphic fileref="images/1541.png"></graphic>
</figure>
+<indexterm><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>First Amendment to</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>First Amendment</primary></indexterm>
<para>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law
treats as unregulated because public policy demands that they remain
<title>Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated.</title>
<graphic fileref="images/1551.png"></graphic>
</figure>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>usage restrictions attached to</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 154 -->
In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
are nonetheless deemed <quote>fair</quote> regardless of the copyright owner's views.
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxbooksthreetypesofusesof' class='endofrange'/>
-<indexterm><primary>books</primary><secondary>on Internet</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxbooksoninternet' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>on Internet</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxinternetbookson2' class='startofrange'><primary>Internet</primary><secondary>books on</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>fair use</primary><secondary>Internet burdens on</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use
of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<footnote><para>
exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the burden of this
shift.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxfairuse' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
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
use—reading— could be regulated by copyright law because
none of those uses produced a copy.
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>books</primary><secondary>on Internet</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxebooks' class='startofrange'><primary>e-books</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm id='idxderivativeworkstechnologicaldevelopmentsand' class='startofrange'><primary>derivative works</primary><secondary>technological developments and</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different
is extraordinarily troubling with respect to transformative uses of
creative work.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxfairuseinternetburdenson' class='startofrange'><primary>fair use</primary><secondary>Internet burdens on</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawfairuseand3' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>fair use and</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxderivativeworksfairusevs' class='startofrange'><primary>derivative works</primary><secondary>fair use vs.</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary
presumptively regulated, then the protections of fair use are not
enough.
</para>
-<indexterm id='idxadvertising2' class='startofrange'><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxbooksoninternet' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxinternetbookson2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxebooks' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxfairuseinternetburdenson' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawfairuseand3' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxderivativeworksfairusevs' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxvideopipeline' class='startofrange'><primary>Video Pipeline</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxadvertising' class='startofrange'><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof' class='startofrange'><primary>film industry</primary><secondary>trailer advertisements of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was
in the business of making <quote>trailer</quote> advertisements for movies available
before you buy the book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit
from the movie on-line before you bought it.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxdisneyinc2' class='startofrange'><primary>Disney, Inc.</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>fair use and</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>copies as core issue of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2' class='startofrange'><primary>fair use</primary><secondary>legal intimidation tactics against</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors
that it intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet
lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these rights were in fact
their rights.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxadvertising' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>usage restrictions attached to</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright infringement lawsuits</primary><secondary>willful infringement findings in</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>willful infringement</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Disney countersued—for $100 million in damages. Those damages
were predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <quote>willfully
not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
Disney's permission.
</para>
-<indexterm startref='idxadvertising2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm><primary>first-sale doctrine</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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
control. The technology expands the scope of effective control,
because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxvideopipeline' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxdisneyinc2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm><primary>Barnes & Noble</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>browsing</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>market competition</primary></indexterm>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 158 -->
No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for
significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>technology as automatic enforcer of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>technology</primary><secondary>copyright enforcement controlled by</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.
silly claim. This extremism was irrelevant to the real freedoms anyone
(including Warner Brothers) enjoyed.
</para>
-<indexterm id='idxbooksoninternet' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>on Internet</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxbooksoninternet
2' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>on Internet</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on
the Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a
Wonderland</quote>.</title>
<graphic fileref="images/1641.png"></graphic>
</figure>
-<beginpage pagenum="164"/>
+<!-- PAGE BREAK 164-->
<para>
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
often crazy.
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxadobeebookreader' class='endofrange'/>
-<indexterm startref='idxbooksoninternet' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxbooksoninternet2' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite
story of mine that makes the same point.
Wide Web, both of which were developed on the basis of protocols in
the public domain. It included an emerging trend to support open
academic journals, including the Public Library of Science project
-that I describe in the Afterword. It included a project to develop
-single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are thought to have
-great significance in biomedical research. (That nonprofit project
-comprised a consortium of the Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and
-technological companies, including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca,
+that I describe in chapter
+<xref xrefstyle="select: labelnumber" linkend="c-afterword"/>. It
+included a project to develop single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs),
+which are thought to have great significance in biomedical
+research. (That nonprofit project comprised a consortium of the
+Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and technological companies,
+including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca,
<!-- PAGE BREAK 270 -->
Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche,
Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff