not, and for that, Disney and Universal wanted to hold it responsible
for the architecture it chose.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3' class='startofrange'><primary>Congress, U.S.</primary><secondary>on copyright laws</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Congress, U.S.</primary><secondary>on VCR technology</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal
champion. Valenti called VCRs <quote>tapeworms.</quote> He warned, <quote>When there are
</para></footnote>
</para>
</blockquote>
+<indexterm startref='idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision. But as
with the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress
controlled film? Should every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get
permission to record a song?
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Supreme Court, U.S.</primary><secondary>on balance of interests in copyright law</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition
has answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated,
table, and putting it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking
then?
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Jefferson, Thomas</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus
ideas, though that's an important difference. The point instead is that
Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333–34.
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>property rights</primary><secondary>intangibility of</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
The exceptions to free use are ideas and expressions within the
reach of the law of patent and copyright, and a few other domains that
<!-- PAGE BREAK 96 -->
<chapter label="6" id="founders">
<title>CHAPTER SIX: Founders</title>
-<indexterm><primary>Henry V</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>English copyright law developed for</secondary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Branagh, Kenneth</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm id='idxbooksenglishlaw' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>English copyright law developed for</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Henry V</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Shakespeare, William</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxromeoandjulietshakespeare' class='startofrange'><primary>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
<emphasis role='strong'>William Shakespeare</emphasis> wrote
<citetitle>Romeo and Juliet</citetitle> in 1595. The play was first
Henry V: <quote>I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of
clichés.</quote>
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Conger</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxtonsonjacob' class='startofrange'><primary>Tonson, Jacob</primary></indexterm>
<para>
In 1774, almost 180 years after <citetitle>Romeo and Juliet</citetitle> was written, the
<quote>copy-right</quote> for the work was still thought by many to be the exclusive
produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
</para>
<indexterm id='idxbritishparliament' class='startofrange'><primary>British Parliament</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Statute of Anne (1710)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Now, there's something puzzling about the year 1774 to anyone who
knows a little about copyright law. The better-known year in the
free in 1731. So why was there any issue about it still being under
Tonson's control in 1774?
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxromeoandjulietshakespeare' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxtonsonjacob' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm><primary>Licensing Act (1662)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a <quote>copyright</quote>
take Shakespeare's play without his, or his estate's, permission? What
reason is there to allow someone else to <quote>steal</quote> Shakespeare's work?
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Statute of Anne (1710)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The answer comes in two parts. We first need to see something special
about the notion of <quote>copyright</quote> that existed at the time of the
protected.
</para>
<indexterm startref='idxbritishparliament' class='endofrange'/>
-<indexterm startref='idxbooksenglishlaw' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor' class='endofrange'/>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 106 -->
</chapter>
<chapter label="7" id="recorders">
owner. He is effectively arguing for a change in our Constitution
itself.
</para>
+<indexterm id='idxjeffersonthomas' class='startofrange'><primary>Jefferson, Thomas</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.
There was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.
did they require that for creative property there must be a public
domain?
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxjeffersonthomas' class='endofrange'/>
+
<para>
To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the
history of these <quote>creative property</quote> rights, and the control that they
uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public
domain to reprint and distribute works.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Statute of Anne (1710)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law,
who help build the public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the
importance of the public domain to other creativity.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Jefferson, Thomas</primary></indexterm>
<para>
The aim is not to fight the <quote>All Rights Reserved</quote> sorts. The aim is to
complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff