statutory licensing, they don't have to pay the copyright owner for
the content they sell.
</para>
-<indexterm><primary>Bernstein, Leonard</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>books</primary><secondary>out of print</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Bernstein, Leonard</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxinternetbookson' class='startofrange'><primary>Internet</primary><secondary>books on</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used
record stores. It is different, of course, because the person making
shut as well?
</para>
<indexterm id='idxbooksfreeonline1' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>free on-line releases of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Doctorow, Cory</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow)</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable
type D sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners
efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
unavailable?</quote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxinternetbookson' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this
chapter, much of the <quote>piracy</quote> that file sharing enables is plainly
<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2' class='endofrange'/>
<indexterm startref='idxcabletv2' class='endofrange'/>
-<indexterm><primary>Betamax</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm
id='idxbetamax' class='startofrange'><primary>Betamax</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm id='idxcassettevcrs1' class='startofrange'><primary>cassette recording</primary><secondary>VCRs</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major
of Jack Valenti).
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxbetamax' class='endofrange'/>
<para>
It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme
Court. In the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
</para>
<figure id="fig-1331">
<title>How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1331.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1331.svg" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<indexterm><primary>Madonna</primary></indexterm>
<para>
<indexterm startref='idxspeedingconstraintson' class='endofrange'/>
<figure id="fig-1361">
<title>Law has a special role in affecting the three.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1361.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1361.svg" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
+
</figure>
<indexterm><primary>architecture, constraint effected through</primary></indexterm>
<para>
</para>
<figure id="fig-1371">
<title>Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1331.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1331.svg" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
+
</figure>
<indexterm id='idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough' class='startofrange'><primary>architecture, constraint effected through</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>law</primary><secondary>as constraint modality</secondary></indexterm>
</para>
<figure id="fig-1381">
<title>effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1381.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1381.svg" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
+
</figure>
<indexterm><primary>Commerce, U.S. Department of</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm id='idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism' class='startofrange'><primary>regulation</primary><secondary>as establishment protectionism</secondary></indexterm>
<emphasis>for the purpose of</emphasis> protecting the railroads?
Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
weakened the <quote>stickiness</quote> of television advertising (if a boring
-commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and it
+commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf), and it
may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to
reinforce commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function
</para>
<figure id="fig-1441">
<title>Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1331.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1331.svg" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
We will end here:
</para>
<figure id="fig-1442">
<title><quote>Copyright</quote> today.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1442.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1442.svg" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
Let me explain how.
</para>
<figure id="fig-1521">
<title>All potential uses of a book.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1521.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1521.svg" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<indexterm id='idxbooksthreetypesofusesof' class='startofrange'><primary>books</primary><secondary>three types of uses of</secondary></indexterm>
<indexterm id='idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof2' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright law</primary><secondary>copies as core issue of</secondary></indexterm>
</para>
<figure id="fig-1531">
<title>Examples of unregulated uses of a book.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1531.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1531.svg" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated
<!-- PAGE BREAK 153 -->
<figure id="fig-1541">
<title>Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1541.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1541.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<indexterm><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>First Amendment to</secondary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>First Amendment</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<figure id="fig-1542">
<title>Unregulated copying considered <quote>fair uses.</quote></title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1542.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1542.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para> </para>
<figure id="fig-1551">
<title>Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1551.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1551.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<indexterm id='idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto' class='startofrange'><primary>copyright</primary><secondary>usage restrictions attached to</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
</para>
<figure id="fig-1611">
<title>Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1611.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1611.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the
</para>
<figure id="fig-1612">
<title>List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1612.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1612.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 161 -->
</para>
<figure id="fig-1621">
<title>E-book of Aristotle;s <quote>Politics</quote></title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1621.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1621.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted
</para>
<figure id="fig-1622">
<title>List of the permissions for Aristotle;s <quote>Politics</quote>.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1622.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1622.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<indexterm><primary>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig)</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Lessig, Lawrence</primary></indexterm>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 162 -->
<figure id="fig-1631">
<title>List of the permissions for <quote>The Future of Ideas</quote>.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1631.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1631.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
No copying, no printing, and don't you dare try to listen to this book!
<figure id="fig-1641">
<title>List of the permissions for <quote>Alice's Adventures in
Wonderland</quote>.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1641.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1641.png" align="center" width="50%"></graphic>
</figure>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 164-->
<para>
</para>
<figure id="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig">
<title>VCR/handgun cartoon.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1711.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1711.png" align="center" width="70%"></graphic>
</figure>
<indexterm><primary>Conrad, Paul</primary></indexterm>
<para>
owned by separate media companies. Now, the media is increasingly
owned by only a few companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC
announced in June 2003, most expect that within a few years, we will
-live in a world where just three companies control more than percent
+live in a world where just three companies control more than 85 percent
of the media.
</para>
<para>
framers sought to protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well
protected— by the market.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Fallows, James</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious
change is in the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows
put it in a recent article about Rupert Murdoch,
-<indexterm><primary>Fallows, James</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
</para>
<figure id="fig-1761-pattern-modern-media-ownership">
<title>Pattern of modern media ownership.</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/1761.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/1761.png" align="center" width="90%"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 175 -->
these issues.
</para>
<indexterm id='idxadvertising3' class='startofrange'><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxcommercials' class='startofrange'><primary>commercials</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxtelevisionadvertisingon' class='startofrange'><primary>television</primary><secondary>advertising on</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched
a media campaign as part of the <quote>war on drugs.</quote> The campaign produced
the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your
message will be heard then?
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Constitution, U.S.</primary><secondary>First Amendment to</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>First Amendment</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Supreme Court, U.S.</primary><secondary>on television advertising bans</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>television</primary><secondary>controversy avoided by</secondary></indexterm>
<para>
No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
<quote>controversial</quote> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
opportunity to present its case. And the courts will defend the
rights of the stations to be this biased.<footnote><para>
<!-- f34 -->
+<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Comcast</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Marijuana Policy Project</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>NBC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>WJOA</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>WRC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
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 <quote>against
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, <quote>On the Issue of
-an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV Networks,</quote> <citetitle>New
-York Times</citetitle>, 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, <quote>Ad
-Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
-Radio,</quote> <citetitle>Yale Law and Policy Review</citetitle> 6 (1988): 449–79, and for a
-more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the courts, see
-<citetitle>Radio-Television News Directors Association</citetitle> v. <citetitle>FCC</citetitle>, 184 F. 3d 872
+limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, <quote>On the
+Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV
+Networks,</quote> <citetitle>New York Times</citetitle>, 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, <quote>Ad Hoc Access:
+The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
+Radio,</quote> <citetitle>Yale Law and Policy Review</citetitle> 6
+(1988): 449–79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of
+the FCC and the courts, see <citetitle>Radio-Television News Directors
+Association</citetitle> v. <citetitle>FCC</citetitle>, 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, <quote>Antidiesel Group Fuming
-After Muni Rejects Ad,</quote> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #32</ulink>. The ground
-was that the criticism was <quote>too controversial.</quote>
-<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Comcast</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Marijuana Policy Project</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>NBC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>WJOA</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>WRC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
+diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, <quote>Antidiesel Group
+Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad,</quote> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003,
+available at <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link
+#32</ulink>. The ground was that the criticism was <quote>too
+controversial.</quote>
</para></footnote>
</para>
+<indexterm startref='idxcommercials' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxtelevisionadvertisingon' class='endofrange'/>
<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
notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all
property rights<footnote><para>
<!-- f36 -->
+<indexterm><primary>legal realist movement</primary></indexterm>
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, <quote>The
Disintegration of Property,</quote> in <citetitle>Nomos XXII: Property</citetitle>, J. Roland
Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University
Press, 1980).
-<indexterm><primary>legal realist movement</primary></indexterm>
</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
competition. Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this
kind of competition. The effect is to produce an overregulated
culture, just as the effect of too much control in the market is to
-produce an overregulatedregulated market.
+produce an overregulated-regulated market.
</para>
<para>
The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is
here.<footnote><para>
<!-- f11. -->
<indexterm><primary>Tauzin, Billy</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Berman, Howard L.</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Hollings, Fritz</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>broadcast flag</primary></indexterm>
For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</quote> 27 June 2003, 33–34,
available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #44</ulink>.
-<indexterm><primary>Berman, Howard L.</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Hollings, Fritz</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>broadcast flag</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
But there is one example that captures the flavor of them all. This is
the story of the demise of Internet radio.
it gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free
<!-- PAGE BREAK 239 -->
-Software Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux
+Software Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/Linux
possible). They included a powerful brief about the costs of
uncertainty by Intel. There were two law professors' briefs, one by
copyright scholars and one by First Amendment scholars. There was an
</para>
<figure id="fig-18">
<title>Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</title>
-<graphic fileref="images/18.png"></graphic>
+<graphic fileref="images/18.png" align="center" width="95%"></graphic>
<indexterm><primary>Bolling, Ruben</primary></indexterm>
</figure>
<para>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff