to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we
set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth?
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
In 1945, these questions became a federal case. When North Carolina
farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens
extent, upwards," then the government was trespassing on their
property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had
declared the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the
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.<footnote><para>
-United States v. Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. The Court did find that
-there could be a "taking" 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, "(Intellectual) Property and Sovereignty:
-Notes Toward a Cultural Geography of Authorship," Stanford Law
- Review
-48 (1996): 1293, 1333. See also Paul Goldstein, Real Property
- (Mineola,
-N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1984), 1112–13.
+the public has a just claim.<footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
+<para>
+United States v. Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. The Court did find
+that there could be a "taking" 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, "(Intellectual)
+Property and Sovereignty: Notes Toward a Cultural Geography of
+Authorship," Stanford Law Review 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. See also Paul
+Goldstein, Real Property (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1984),
+1112–13.
</para></footnote>
</para>
</blockquote>
technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were
as solid as rock in one age crumble in another.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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
understand
the source of this war. We must resolve it soon.
</para>
-<para>
-Like the Causbys' battle, this war is, in part, about "property."
-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
-"property" 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
-"intellectual property" 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 "trespassing"
-upon legitimate claims of "property." It is as plain to us as it was to
-them that the law should intervene to stop this trespass.
-</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
+<para>
+Like the Causbys' battle, this war is, in part, about "property." 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 "property" 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 "intellectual property" 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
+"trespassing" upon legitimate claims of "property." It is as plain to
+us as it was to them that the law should intervene to stop this
+trespass.
+</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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 Causbys,
-common sense is on the side of the property owners in this war. Unlike
+Wright brothers technology, most of us are simply unsympathetic.
+Common sense does not revolt. Unlike in the case of the unlucky
+Causbys, common sense is on the side of the property owners in this
+war. Unlike
<!-- PAGE BREAK 27 -->
the lucky Wright brothers, the Internet has not inspired a revolution
on its side.
versus RCA, the more powerful side has ensured that it has the
more powerful view?
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
-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 "intellectual property."
-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.
+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 "intellectual
+property." 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.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 28 -->
</para>
<para>
</para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
-This different cycle is possible because the same commercial
- pressures
+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.
+If they lose readers, they lose revenue. Like sharks, they must move
+on.
</para>
<para>
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 story. And as
-the number of links to a particular story increases, it 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.
+can focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a
+particularly interesting story, more and more people link to that
+story. And as the number of links to a particular story increases, it
+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.
</para>
<para>
There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle
conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of
get it out of the way."
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>CNN</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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.<footnote><para>
+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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f19 -->
Telephone interview with David Winer, 16 April 2003.
</para></footnote>
-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 they were writing "the story.")
-</para>
-<para>
-Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate—"amateur" 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.<footnote><para>
+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 they were writing "the story.")
+</para>
+<para> Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the
+debate—"amateur" 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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f20 -->
-John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
- Information
-Online," New York Times, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer,
-"Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," Online
- Journalism
-Review, 2 February 2003, available at
+John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
+Information Online," New York Times, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci
+D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall,"
+Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #10</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
-And it drives
-readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as Winer
-puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly with
-our constituency, and the middle man is out of it"—with all the
- benefits,
-and costs, that might entail.
+And it drives readers to read across the range of accounts and
+"triangulate," as Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are
+"communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is
+out of it"—with all the benefits, and costs, that might entail.
</para>
<para>
-Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with
-blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for
- public
-figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's not clear that
-"journalism" is happy about this—some journalists have been told to
-curtail their blogging.<footnote><para>
+Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected
+with blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts,
+for public figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's
+not clear that "journalism" is happy about this—some journalists
+have been told to curtail their blogging.<footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>CNN</primary></indexterm>
+<para>
<!-- f21 -->
See Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?" New
York Times, 29 September 2003, C4. ("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 Houston Chronicle 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.")
+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 Houston Chronicle 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.")
</para></footnote>
But it is clear that we are still in transition. "A
Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
</para>
<para>
-When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with
-cable television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the
- content
-that they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable
- companies
+When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
+television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content
+that they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies
started selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay
<!-- PAGE BREAK 73 -->
for what they sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing
- broadcasters'
-content, but more egregiously than anything Napster ever did—
-Napster never charged for the content it enabled others to give away.
+broadcasters' content, but more egregiously than anything Napster ever
+did— Napster never charged for the content it enabled others to
+give away.
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Anello, Douglas</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Burdick, Quentin</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.
Rosel Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of
"unfair and potentially destructive competition."<footnote><para>
<!-- f13 -->
-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).
+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).
</para></footnote>
There may have been a "public interest" in spreading the reach of cable
TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the National Association
</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
-Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable
-enough:
+Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable enough:
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
-These were "free-ride[rs]," Screen Actor's Guild president
- Charlton
-
Heston said, who were "depriving actors of compensation."<footnote><para>
+These were "free-ride[rs]," Screen Actor's Guild president Charlton
+Heston said, who were "depriving actors of
+compensation."<footnote><para>
<!-- f17 -->
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (statement of Charlton Heston,
president of the Screen Actors Guild).
</para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
-But again, there was another side to the debate. As Assistant
- Attorney
+But again, there was another side to the debate. As Assistant Attorney
General Edwin Zimmerman put it,
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
-Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have
-any copyright protection at all, the problem here is whether
- copyright
-holders who are already compensated, who already have a
-monopoly, should be permitted to extend that monopoly. . . . The
+Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any
+copyright protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright
+holders who are already compensated, who already have a monopoly,
+should be permitted to extend that monopoly. . . . The
<!-- PAGE BREAK 74 -->
question here is how much compensation they should have and
how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<footnote><para>
<!-- f18 -->
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M.
- Zimmerman,
-acting assistant attorney general).
+Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M.
+Zimmerman, acting assistant attorney general).
</para></footnote>
</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
-Copyright owners took the cable companies to court. Twice the
-Supreme Court held that the cable companies owed the copyright
-owners nothing.
+Copyright owners took the cable companies to court. Twice the Supreme
+Court held that the cable companies owed the copyright owners nothing.
</para>
<para>
It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question
of whether cable companies had to pay for the content they "pirated."
-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 "piracy" of the value created by
- broadcasters'
-content.
-</para>
-<para>
-These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy"
-means using value from someone else's creative property without
- permission
-from that creator—as it is increasingly described today<footnote><para>
+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 "piracy" of the value
+created by broadcasters' content.
+</para>
+<para>
+These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy" means
+using value from someone else's creative property without permission
+from that creator—as it is increasingly described
+today<footnote><para>
<!-- f19 -->
See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, The Engine
of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free
<sect1 id="piracy">
<title>CHAPTER FIVE: "Piracy"</title>
<para>
-
-There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy
-comes in many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the
+There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes
+in many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the
unauthorized taking of other people's content within a commercial
-context. Despite the many justifications that are offered in its defense,
-this taking is wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should
-stop it.
+context. Despite the many justifications that are offered in its
+defense, this taking is wrong. No one should condone it, and the law
+should stop it.
</para>
<para>
But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of "taking"
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 "piracy," 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.
+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.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 76 -->
</para>
<sect2 id="piracy-i">
Like every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and,
arguably,
off the Internet as well<footnote><para>
-<!-- f5 -->
+<!-- f5 -->
See Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary
National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do Business (New York:
HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies
decline. As Jane Black of BusinessWeek notes, "The soundtrack to the film
High Fidelity has a list price of $18.98. You could get the whole movie
[on DVD] for $19.99."<footnote><para>
-<!-- f14 -->
+<!-- f14 -->
Ibid.
</para></footnote>
</para>
passed into the public domain.
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Bacon, Francis</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Bunyan, John</primary></indexterm>
<para>
"The public domain." Before the case of Donaldson v. Beckett, there
was no clear idea of a public domain in England. Before 1774, there
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.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f2 -->
+<!-- f2 -->
Doug Herrick, "Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at the
Library of Congress," Film Library Quarterly 13 nos. 2–3 (1980): 5;
Anthony
another.<footnote>
<indexterm><primary>Commons, John R.</primary></indexterm>
<para>
-<!-- f4 -->
+<!-- f4 -->
Some people object to this way of talking about "liberty." They object
because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any
particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Carson, Rachel</primary></indexterm>
<para>
But in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which argued that
DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having unintended
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.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f9 -->
+<!-- f9 -->
Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790
to 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, A
History of Book Publishing in the United States, vol. 1, The Creation
tradition embraced, who said whether and how the law would restrict
your freedom.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Casablanca</primary></indexterm>
<para>
There's a famous story about a battle between the Marx Brothers
and Warner Brothers. The Marxes intended to make a parody of
Them (New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001).
</para></footnote>
- Lumbering
-giants not only don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is
-only open to the giants, there will be far too little sprinting.
+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.
</para>
<para>
I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media
mistake. I am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once
<!-- PAGE BREAK 178 -->
-wrecked by drugs—though the drugs that wrecked my family were all
-quite legal. I believe this war is a profound mistake because the
- collateral
-damage from it is so great as to make waging the war insane.
-When you add together the burdens on the criminal justice system, the
-desperation of generations of kids whose only real economic
- opportunities
-are as drug warriors, the queering of constitutional protections
- because
-of the constant surveillance this war requires, and, most profoundly,
-the total destruction of the legal systems of many South American
- nations
-because of the power of the local drug cartels, I find it impossible
-to believe that the marginal benefit in reduced drug consumption by
-Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
-</para>
-<para>
-You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and
-it is through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we
- depend
-fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about
+wrecked by drugs—though the drugs that wrecked my family were
+all quite legal. I believe this war is a profound mistake because the
+collateral damage from it is so great as to make waging the war
+insane. When you add together the burdens on the criminal justice
+system, the desperation of generations of kids whose only real
+economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the queering of
+constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance this
+war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
+systems of many South American nations because of the power of the
+local drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal
+benefit in reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly
+outweigh these costs.
+</para>
+<para>
+You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it
+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.
</para>
<para>
-Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
-launched a media campaign as part of the "war on drugs." 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 damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of
-drug legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way
-against the argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his
-mind (hey, it's television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on
-the pro-legalization campaign.
+Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched
+a media campaign as part of the "war on drugs." 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
+damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
+legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way
+against the argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes
+his mind (hey, it's television). The plug at the end is a damning
+attack on the pro-legalization campaign.
</para>
<para>
Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
<para>
But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
-demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the
-drug war. Can you do it?
+demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
+war. Can you do it?
</para>
<para>
Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
<!-- PAGE BREAK 179 -->
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?
+the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your
+message will be heard then?
</para>
<para>
-No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of
- avoiding
+No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
"controversial" 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.<footnote><para>
+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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f34 -->
-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 "against [their]
- policy."
-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, "On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with
-Rejection from TV Networks," New York Times, 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, "Ad Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial
- Advertising
-on Television and Radio," Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988):
-449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
-courts, see Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC, 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, "Antidiesel Group Fuming 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."
-</para></footnote>
-</para>
-<para>
-I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived in
-a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media
-throws that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control
- access
-to the media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which
-political positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in
-an obvious and important way, concentration 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.
-
+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 "against
+[their] policy." 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, "On the Issue of
+an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV Networks," New
+York Times, 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, "Ad
+Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
+Radio," Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988): 449–79, and for a
+more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the courts, see
+Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC, 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, "Antidiesel Group Fuming
+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."
+</para></footnote>
+</para>
+<para>
+I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived
+in a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the
+media throws that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies
+control access to the media, and that handful of companies gets to
+decide which political positions it will allow to be promoted on its
+channels, then in an obvious and important way, concentration
+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.
</para>
</sect2>
<sect2 id="together">
<title>Together</title>
<para>
-There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the
- copyright
-warriors that the government should "protect my property." In
-the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
-sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
+There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the
+copyright warriors that the government should "protect my property."
+In the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally
+harmless. No sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
</para>
<para>
But when we see how dramatically this "property" 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 to seem
+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
+to seem
<!-- PAGE BREAK 180 -->
-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 "property" 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.
+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 "property" 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.
</para>
<para>
Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish
our culture today.
</para>
<para>
-But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
- notwithstanding.
-And these massive shifts in the effective power of copyright
-regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content industry and
-resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly enable control
-over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether another
- adjustment
-is called for. Not an adjustment that increases copyright's
-power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
- adjustment
-to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
-regulation—a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
+But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
+notwithstanding. And these massive shifts in the effective power of
+copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
+industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
+enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider
+whether another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that
+increases copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its
+term. Rather, an adjustment to restore the balance that has
+traditionally defined copyright's regulation—a weakening of that
+regulation, to strengthen creativity.
</para>
<para>
-Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of
- constant
-commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and
+Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of
+constant commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and
geeks now flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a
short period of time, as the technologies of distribution and creation
-have changed and as lobbyists have pushed for more control by
- copyright
-holders. Changes in the past in response to changes in
- technology
-suggest that we may well need similar changes in the future. And
-these changes have to be reductions in the scope of copyright, in
- response
-to the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the
-market enable.
+have changed and as lobbyists have pushed for more control by
+copyright holders. Changes in the past in response to changes in
+technology suggest that we may well need similar changes in the
+future. And these changes have to be reductions in the scope of
+copyright, in response to the extraordinary increase in control that
+technology and the market enable.
</para>
<para>
For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that
we see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add
<!-- PAGE BREAK 181 -->
together the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and
- changing
-technology, together they produce an astonishing conclusion:
-Never in our history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the
- development
-of our culture than now.
-</para>
-<para>
-Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were
-perpetual, they affected only that precise creative work. Not when only
-publishers had the tools to publish, for the market then was much more
-diverse. Not when there were only three television networks, for even
-then, newspapers, film studios, radio stations, and publishers were
- independent
-of the networks. Never has copyright protected such a wide
-range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
-remotely as long. This form of regulation—a tiny regulation of a tiny
-part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding—is now a
- massive
-regulation 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.<footnote><para>
+changing technology, together they produce an astonishing conclusion:
+Never in our history have fewer had a legal right to control more of
+the development of our culture than now.
+</para>
+<para> Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were
+perpetual, they affected only that precise creative work. Not when
+only publishers had the tools to publish, for the market then was much
+more diverse. Not when there were only three television networks, for
+even then, newspapers, film studios, radio stations, and publishers
+were independent of the networks. Never has copyright protected such a
+wide range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term
+that was remotely as long. This form of regulation—a tiny
+regulation of a tiny part of the creative energy of a nation at the
+founding—is now a massive regulation 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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f35 -->
Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his "four surrenders" of
copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
</para>
<para>
At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
-noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have
- distinguished
-between copying a work and transforming it. We can now
+noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have
+distinguished between copying a work and transforming it. We can now
combine these two distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes
-that copyright law has undergone.
-In 1790, the law looked like this:
+that copyright law has undergone. In 1790, the law looked like this:
</para>
<table id="t2">
</table>
<para>
-Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law—if
- published,
-which again, given the economics of publishing at the time,
+Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law—if
+published, which again, given the economics of publishing at the time,
means if offered commercially. But noncommercial publishing and
transformation were still essentially free.
</para>
<para>
-In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and
- after
+In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after
this change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the
-technology of copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law
- expanded.
-Thus by 1975, as photocopying machines became more
- common,
+technology of copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law
+expanded. Thus by 1975, as photocopying machines became more common,
we could say the law began to look like this:
</para>
</table>
<para>
-Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most
- creativity
-was not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity—
+Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most
+creativity was not. The law now regulates the full range of
+creativity—
<!-- PAGE BREAK 183 -->
-commercial or not, transformative or not—with the same rules designed
-to regulate commercial publishers.
+commercial or not, transformative or not—with the same rules
+designed to regulate commercial publishers.
</para>
<para>
Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation
<para>
I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.
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
+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.
<para>
The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of
course copyright is a kind of "property," 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<footnote><para>
+property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
+notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all
+property rights<footnote><para>
<!-- f36 -->
-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, "The Disintegration of
-Property," in Nomos XXII: Property, J. Roland Pennock and John W.
-Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, 1980).
+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, "The
+Disintegration of Property," in Nomos XXII: Property, J. Roland
+Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University
+Press, 1980).
</para></footnote>)
has been crafted to balance the important need to give authors and
artists incentives with the equally important need to assure access to
-creative work. This balance has always been struck in light of new
- technologies.
-And for almost half of our tradition, the "copyright" did not
-control at all 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.
+creative work. This balance has always been struck in light of new
+technologies. And for almost half of our tradition, the "copyright"
+did not control at all 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.
</para>
<para>
We achieved that free culture because our law respected important
limits on the scope of the interests protected by "property." The very
birth of "copyright" as a statutory right recognized those limits, by
-granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the story
-of chapter 6). The tradition of "fair use" is animated by a similar
- concern
-that is increasingly under strain as the costs of exercising any fair
-use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter 7). Adding
+granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
+story of chapter 6). The tradition of "fair use" is animated by a
+similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
+exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of
+chapter 7). Adding
<!-- PAGE BREAK 184 -->
statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
- familiar
-limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
- granting
-archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of property
-notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a culture
-(chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with property. But
-the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very different
-from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
-</para>
-<para>
-Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In
- response
-to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
-Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing
-and distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed
-in a way that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property
-right that is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or
-was intended to be. The property right that is copyright has become
-unbalanced, tilted toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and
-transform becomes weakened in a world in which creation requires
-permission and creativity must check with a lawyer.
+familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter
+8). And granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect,
+claims of property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing
+the soul of a culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets,
+are built with property. But the nature of the property that builds a
+free culture is very different from the extremist vision that
+dominates the debate today.
+</para>
+<para>
+Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In
+response to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the
+technologies of the Internet present to twentieth-century business
+models for producing and distributing culture, the law and technology
+are being transformed in a way that will undermine our tradition of
+free culture. The property right that is copyright is no longer the
+balanced right that it was, or was intended to be. The property right
+that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted toward an extreme. The
+opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened in a world in
+which creation requires permission and creativity must check with a
+lawyer.
</para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 185 -->
</sect2>
</chapter>
<chapter id="c-puzzles">
<title>PUZZLES</title>
-
-<para> </para>
-
+<para></para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 186 -->
<sect1 id="chimera">
<title>CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</title>
-<para>
+<indexterm id="idxchimera" class='startofrange'>
+ <primary>chimeras</primary>
+</indexterm>
+<indexterm id="idxwells" class='startofrange'>
+ <primary>Wells, H. G.</primary>
+</indexterm>
+<indexterm id="idxtcotb" class='startofrange'>
+ <primary>"Country of the Blind, The" (Wells)</primary>
+</indexterm>
+<para>
In a well-known 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.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f1. --> H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells,
+<!-- f1. -->
+H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells,
The Country of the Blind and Other Stories, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
</para></footnote>
-The valley is extraordinarily
-beautiful, with "sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich
-brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit." But the
-villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an opportunity. "In the
-Country of the Blind," he tells himself, "the One-Eyed Man is King."
-So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life as a king.
+The valley is extraordinarily beautiful, with "sweet water, pasture,
+an even climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub
+that bore an excellent fruit." But the villagers are all blind. Nunez
+takes this as an opportunity. "In the Country of the Blind," he tells
+himself, "the One-Eyed Man is King." So he resolves to live with the
+villagers to explore life as a king.
</para>
<para>
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
-"blind." They don't have the word blind. 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. "`You don't
- understand,'
-he cried, in a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and
-which broke. `You are blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'"
+"blind." They don't have the word blind. 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. "`You
+don't understand,' he cried, in a voice that was meant to be great and
+resolute, and which broke. `You are blind and I can see. Leave me
+alone!'"
</para>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 187 -->
-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 "the most beautiful thing in
-the whole of creation," understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's
- description
-of what he sees "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."
-"She did not believe," Wells tells us, and "she could only half
- understand,
-but she was mysteriously delighted."
-</para>
-<para>
-When Nunez announces his desire to marry his "mysteriously
- delighted"
+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 "the most beautiful thing in
+the whole of creation," understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's
+description of what he sees "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." "She did not believe," Wells tells us, and "she could
+only half understand, but she was mysteriously delighted."
+</para>
+<para>
+When Nunez announces his desire to marry his "mysteriously delighted"
love, the father and the village object. "You see, my dear," her
-father instructs, "he's an idiot. He has delusions. He can't do anything
-right." They take Nunez to the village doctor.
+father instructs, "he's an idiot. He has delusions. He can't do
+anything right." They take Nunez to the village doctor.
</para>
<para>
After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. "His brain
is affected," he reports.
</para>
<para>
-"What affects it?" the father asks.
-"Those queer things that are called the eyes . . . are diseased . . . in
-such a way as to affect his brain."
+"What affects it?" the father asks. "Those queer things that are
+called the eyes . . . are diseased . . . in such a way as to affect
+his brain."
</para>
<para>
The doctor continues: "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]."
+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]."
</para>
<para>
-"Thank Heaven for science!" says the father to the doctor. They
- inform
+"Thank Heaven for science!" 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.)
+(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.)
It sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's
womb. That fusion produces a "chimera." 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
<!-- PAGE BREAK 188 -->
-plot for murder mysteries. "But the DNA shows with 100 percent
- certainty
-that she was not the person whose blood was at the scene. . . ."
+plot for murder mysteries. "But the DNA shows with 100 percent
+certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at the
+scene. . . ."
</para>
+<indexterm startref="idxtcotb" class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref="idxwells" class="endofrange"/>
<para>
-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 "person" should reflect this reality.
+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 "person" should reflect this reality.
</para>
<para>
-The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright
-and culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not
+The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
+culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not
unfairly enough, "the copyright wars," the more I think we're dealing
with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question "What is
-p2p file sharing?" both sides have it right, and both sides have it wrong.
-One side says, "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." 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 recording company no
-doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
+p2p file sharing?" both sides have it right, and both sides have it
+wrong. One side says, "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." 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
+recording company no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
</para>
<para>
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
+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
"friends" beyond recognition to say "my ten thousand best friends" can
get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best friend is
-what "we have always been allowed to do," we have not always been
- allowed
-to share music with "our ten thousand best friends."
+what "we have always been allowed to do," we have not always been
+allowed to share music with "our ten thousand best friends."
</para>
<para>
Likewise, when the other side says, "File sharing is just like walking
into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out
-with it," 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.
+with it," 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.
</para>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 189 -->
But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD
-from Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take
-a CD from Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and
- something
-to show on my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note
-that when I take a CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that
-might be imposed on me, under California law, at least, is $1,000.
- According
-to the RIAA, by contrast, if I download a ten-song CD, I'm
- liable
-for $1,500,000 in damages.)
+from Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a
+CD from Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and
+something to show on my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could
+also note that when I take a CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine
+that might be imposed on me, under California law, at least, is
+$1,000. According to the RIAA, by contrast, if I download a ten-song
+CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
</para>
<para>
-The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that
-it is both—both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It
-is a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side
- asserts,
-we need to begin to think about how we should respond to this
-chimera. What rules should govern it?
+The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is
+that it is both—both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa
+describes it. It is a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the
+other side asserts, we need to begin to think about how we should
+respond to this chimera. What rules should govern it?
</para>
<para>
We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We
-could, with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a
-felony. We could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages
-just because file sharing occurred on a family computer. And 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.<footnote><para>
+could, with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be
+a felony. We could prosecute families for millions of dollars in
+damages just because file sharing occurred on a family computer. And
+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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f2. --> For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
"Copyright
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref="idxchimera" class='endofirange'/>
<para>
-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
- copyrighted
-content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip:
- regulated,
-if at all, by social norms but not by law.
+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
+copyrighted content available on the Net. Make file sharing like
+gossip: regulated, if at all, by social norms but not by law.
</para>
<para>
Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.
power of the property called "intellectual property" is at its greatest in
our history.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
-Yet "common sense" 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
+Yet "common sense" 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 "piracy" still has play.
</para>
<para>
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.<footnote><para>
+suffering.<footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>Bush, George W.</primary></indexterm>
+<para>
<!-- f2. --> 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, "Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,'
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.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f14. --> This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright
- Arbitration
-Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example
-offered by Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw
-(Stanford), 3 July 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain
-submitted testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.
-See Jonathan Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings
-and Ephemeral Recordings, Docket No. 2000-9, CARP DTRA 1 and 2,
-available at
+over $1 million a year.<footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel)</primary></indexterm>
+<para>
+<!-- f14. -->
+This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright
+Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an
+example offered by Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings,
+iLaw (Stanford), 3 July 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher
+and Zittrain submitted testimony in the CARP proceeding that was
+ultimately rejected. See Jonathan Zittrain, Digital Performance Right
+in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings, Docket No. 2000-9, CARP
+DTRA 1 and 2, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #45</ulink>.
-For an excellent analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker,
-"Copyright as Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution," Antitrust
-Bulletin (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: "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
+For an excellent analysis making a similar point, see Randal
+C. Picker, "Copyright as Entry Policy: The Case of Digital
+Distribution," Antitrust Bulletin (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: "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."
</para></footnote>
- A regular radio station broadcasting the same
-content would pay no equivalent fee.
+A regular radio station broadcasting the same content would pay no
+equivalent fee.
</para>
<para>
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
domain connected to a public that now has the means to create with it
and to share its own creation.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
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
thought to violate the law. Universities are threatening expulsion for
kids who use a computer to share content.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced
that it will build a "Creative Archive," from which British citizens can
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff