-<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Free Culture</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.78.1"><meta name="description" content="About the author Lawrence Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor of law and a
John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is chairman of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). The author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), Lessig is a member of the boards of the Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, twice listed in BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, and named one of Scientific American's 50 visionaries. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="en" class="book"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Free Culture</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">How big media uses technology and the law to lock down
- culture and control creativity</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Version 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice"><a name="idp3
37216"></a><p>
+<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Free Culture</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.78.1"><meta name="description" content="About the author Lawrence Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor of law and a
Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is chairman of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). The author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), Lessig is a member of the boards of the Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, twice listed in BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, and named one of Scientific American's 50 visionaries. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="en" class="book"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Free Culture</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">How big media uses technology and the law to lock down
+ culture and control creativity</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Version 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice"><a name="idp3
203808"></a><p>
<span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="38" alt="Creative Commons, Some rights reserved"></span>
</p><p>
This book is licensed under a Creative Commons license. This license
permits non-commercial use of this work, so long as attribution is
given. For more information about the license visit
-<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
+<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>.
</p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract"><p class="title"><b>About the author</b></p><p>
-Lawrence Lessig
+Lawrence Lessig
(<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>),
-professor of law and a John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar
-at Stanford Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet
+professor of law and a Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership
+at Harvard Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet
and Society and is chairman of the Creative Commons
(<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
The author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And
the boards of the Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, and Public Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free
Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software,
-twice listed in BusinessWeek's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>»</span> and named one of Scientific
-American's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">50 visionaries.</span>»</span> A graduate of the University of
-Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, Lessig
-clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
-Appeals.
+twice listed in BusinessWeek's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>»</span> and named one
+of Scientific American's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">50 visionaries.</span>»</span> A graduate of
+the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law
+School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh
+Circuit Court of Appeals.
</p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a>
Also by Lawrence Lessig
</h1></div></div></div><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
-</p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp
5736736"></a></h1></div></div></div><p>
+</p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp
1180848"></a></h1></div></div></div><p>
To Eric Eldred — whose work first drew me to this cause, and for whom
it continues still.
-</p></div><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Preface</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Chapter Four: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Chapter Five: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Together</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Puzzles</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Balances</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">1. <a href="#usnow">Us, now</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">1.1. <a href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">2. <a href="#themsoon">Them, soon</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. More Formalities</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Marking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">Notes</a></span></dt><d
t><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp10793056">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="preface"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Preface</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Preface</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Chapter Four: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Chapter Five: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Together</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Puzzles</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Balances</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-afterword">Afterword</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">1. <a href="#usnow">Us, now</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">1.1. <a href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">2. <a href="#themsoon">Them, soon</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. More Formalities</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registration and renewal</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Marking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">Notes</a></span></dt><d
d><dl><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp10778304">Index</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp10789408">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="preface"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Preface</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
<span class="bold"><strong>At the end</strong></span> of his review of my first
book, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, David
Pogue, a brilliant writer and author of countless technical and
off. It is an argument about how the battles that now rage regarding life
on-line have fundamentally affected <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">people who aren't online.</span>»</span> There
is no switch that will insulate us from the Internet's effect.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
189728"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
326304"></a><p>
But unlike <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, the argument here is not much
about the Internet itself. It is instead about the consequence of the
Internet to a part of our tradition that is much more fundamental,
That tradition is the way our culture gets made. As I explain in the
pages that follow, we come from a tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture</span>»</span>—not
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free beer</span>»</span> (to borrow a phrase from the founder of the
-free software movement<a href="#ftn.idp6864992" class="footnote" name="idp6864992"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>), but <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free speech,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free markets,</span>»</span>
+free software movement<a href="#ftn.idp177232" class="footnote" name="idp177232"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>), but <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free speech,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free markets,</span>»</span>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free trade,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free enterprise,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free will,</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free elections.</span>»</span> A
free culture supports and protects creators and innovators. It does
this directly by granting intellectual property rights. But it does so
disinterested, then the story I tell here will trouble you. For the
changes I describe affect values that both sides of our political
culture deem fundamental.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp68
72944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6873696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6874448"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp68
40096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6840848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6841600"></a><p>
We saw a glimpse of this bipartisan outrage in the early summer of
2003. As the FCC considered changes in media ownership rules that
would relax limits on media concentration, an extraordinary coalition
power—political, corporate, media, cultural—should be anathema to
conservatives. The diffusion of power through local control, thereby
encouraging individual participation, is the essence of federalism and
-the greatest expression of democracy.<a href="#ftn.idp6869824" class="footnote" name="idp6869824"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a>
+the greatest expression of democracy.<a href="#ftn.idp182576" class="footnote" name="idp182576"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This idea is an element of the argument of <em class="citetitle">Free Culture</em>, though my
focus is not just on the concentration of power produced by
altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry
you—whether or not you care about the Internet, and whether you're on
Safire's left or on his right.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp68
80352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp68
47504"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The inspiration</strong></span> for the title and for
much of the argument of this book comes from the work of Richard
Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Indeed, as I reread
book is written.
</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.preface01" class="footnote"><p><a href="#preface01" class="para"><sup class="para">[1] </sup></a>
David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 30 January 2000.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6864992" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6864992" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp177232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp177232" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>
Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Societies</em> 57 (Joshua Gay, ed. 2002).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6869824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6869824" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a> William Safire,
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp182576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp182576" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a> William Safire,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 May 2003.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6878576"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6845728"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Chapter . Introduction</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxwrightbrothers"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>On December 17</strong></span>, 1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just
shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a
At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American
law held that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface
of his land, but all the land below, down to the center of the earth,
-and all the space above, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6895696" class="footnote" name="idp6895696"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a>
+and all the space above, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6862848" class="footnote" name="idp6862848"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a>
For many
years, scholars had puzzled about how best to interpret the idea that
rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean that you owned the
stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and regular trespass?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp68
96960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp68
64112"></a><p>
Then came airplanes, and for the first time, this principle of American
law—deep within the foundations of our tradition, and acknowledged
by the most important legal thinkers of our past—mattered. If
my field? Do I have the right to banish it from my property? Am I allowed
to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we
set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp68
98816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6899568"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp68
65968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6866720"></a><p>
In 1945, these questions became a federal case. When North Carolina
farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens
because of low-flying military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently
Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an indefinite
extent, upwards,</span>»</span> then the government was trespassing on their
property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
901680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6902432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
868832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6869584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></a><p>
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had
declared the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the
heavens, then Congress's declaration could well have been an unconstitutional
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.<a href="#ftn.idp6909088" class="footnote" name="idp6909088"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a>
+the public has a just claim.<a href="#ftn.idp6876320" class="footnote" name="idp6876320"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common sense revolts at the idea.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
914336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
881600"></a><p>
This is how the law usually works. Not often this abruptly or
impatiently, but eventually, this is how it works. It was Douglas's style not to
dither. Other justices would have blathered on for pages to reach the
genius of a common law system, as ours is, that the law adjusts to the
technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were
as solid as rock in one age crumble in another.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
917216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6918000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6918816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
884624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6885408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6886224"></a><p>
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
though there were no doubt many like them who were upset by the
end, the force of what seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">obvious</span>»</span> to everyone else—the power of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span>—would prevail. Their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">private interest</span>»</span> would not be
allowed to defeat an obvious public gain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
922704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6924032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6925376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6926352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6928560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6929312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6930064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
890112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6891440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6892784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6893760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6895968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6896720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6897472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> is one of
America's forgotten inventor geniuses. He came to the great American
inventor scene just after the titans Thomas Edison and Alexander
fire. … Sousa marches were played from records and a piano solo
and guitar number were performed. … The music was projected with a
live-ness rarely if ever heard before from a radio <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">music
-box.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6938592" class="footnote" name="idp6938592"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a>
+box.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6906000" class="footnote" name="idp6906000"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrca"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediaownershipconcentrationin"></a><p>
As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly
superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Armstrong
the United States, but the stations in large cities were all owned by
a handful of networks.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
44384"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
11632"></a><p>
RCA's president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong's, was eager
that Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. So
Sarnoff was quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device
I thought Armstrong would invent some kind of a filter to remove
static from our AM radio. I didn't think he'd start a
revolution— start up a whole damn new industry to compete with
-RCA.<a href="#ftn.idp6935184" class="footnote" name="idp6935184"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
50320"></a><p>
+RCA.<a href="#ftn.idp6902592" class="footnote" name="idp6902592"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
17568"></a><p>
Armstrong's invention threatened RCA's AM empire, so the company
launched a campaign to smother FM radio. While FM may have been a
superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician. As one author
this threat to corporate position. For FM, if allowed to develop
unrestrained, posed … a complete reordering of radio power
… and the eventual overthrow of the carefully restricted AM system
-on which RCA had grown to power.<a href="#ftn.idp6953856" class="footnote" name="idp6953856"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a>
+on which RCA had grown to power.<a href="#ftn.idp6921136" class="footnote" name="idp6921136"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfcconfmradio"></a><p>
RCA at first kept the technology in house, insisting that further
tests were needed. When, after two years of testing, Armstrong grew
The series of body blows that FM radio received right after the
war, in a series of rulings manipulated through the FCC by the
big radio interests, were almost incredible in their force and
-deviousness.<a href="#ftn.idp6958400" class="footnote" name="idp6958400"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
59168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6960144"></a><p>
+deviousness.<a href="#ftn.idp6925808" class="footnote" name="idp6925808"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
26576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6927440"></a><p>
To make room in the spectrum for RCA's latest gamble, television,
FM radio users were to be moved to a totally new spectrum band. The
power of FM radio stations was also cut, meaning FM could no longer
FM relaying stations would mean radio stations would have to buy
wired links from AT&T.) The spread of FM radio was thus choked, at
least temporarily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
61920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6962896"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
29216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6930192"></a><p>
Armstrong resisted RCA's efforts. In response, RCA resisted
Armstrong's patents. After incorporating FM technology into the
emerging standard for television, RCA declared the patents
would not even cover Armstrong's lawyers' fees. Defeated, broken, and
now broke, in 1954 Armstrong wrote a short note to his wife and then
stepped out of a thirteenth-story window to his death.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
64128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6965984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6966960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6967712"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
31424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6933280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6934256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6935008"></a><p>
This is how the law sometimes works. Not often this tragically, and
rarely with heroic drama, but sometimes, this is how it works. From
the beginning, government and government agencies have been subject to
another, are sustained through this subtle corruption of our political
process. RCA had what the Causbys did not: the power to stifle the
effect of technological change.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
70576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6971552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
37872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6938848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There's no</strong></span> single inventor of the Internet. Nor is there any good date
upon which to mark its birth. Yet in a very short time, the Internet
has become part of ordinary American life. According to the Pew
Internet and American Life Project, 58 percent of Americans had access
to the Internet in 2002, up from 49 percent two years
-before.<a href="#ftn.idp6975232" class="footnote" name="idp6975232"><sup class="footnote">[10]</sup></a>
+before.<a href="#ftn.idp6942528" class="footnote" name="idp6942528"><sup class="footnote">[10]</sup></a>
That number could well exceed two thirds of the nation by the end
of 2004.
</p><p>
old as the Republic itself. Most, if they recognized this change,
would reject it. Yet most don't even see the change that the Internet
has introduced.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
79040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6980016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6982256"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
46336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6947312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6949552"></a><p>
We can glimpse a sense of this change by distinguishing between
commercial and noncommercial culture, and by mapping the law's
regulation of each. By <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commercial culture</span>»</span> I mean that part of our
then quite extensively, the law protected the incentives of creators by
granting them exclusive rights to their creative work, so that they could
sell those exclusive rights in a commercial
-marketplace.<a href="#ftn.idp6988944" class="footnote" name="idp6988944"><sup class="footnote">[11]</sup></a>
+marketplace.<a href="#ftn.idp6956240" class="footnote" name="idp6956240"><sup class="footnote">[11]</sup></a>
This is also, of course, an important part of creativity and culture,
and it has become an increasingly important part in America. But in no
sense was it dominant within our tradition. It was instead just one
part, a controlled part, balanced with the free.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
91600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6992608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
58896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6959904"></a><p>
This rough divide between the free and the controlled has now
-been erased.<a href="#ftn.idp6993872" class="footnote" name="idp6993872"><sup class="footnote">[12]</sup></a>
+been erased.<a href="#ftn.idp6961168" class="footnote" name="idp6961168"><sup class="footnote">[12]</sup></a>
The Internet has set the stage for this erasure and, pushed by big
media, the law has now affected it. For the first time in our
tradition, the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share
free and uses of our culture that were only upon permission—has
been undone. The consequence is that we are less and less a free
culture, more and more a permission culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
95808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6997376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6998128"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
63104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6964672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6965424"></a><p>
This change gets justified as necessary to protect commercial
creativity. And indeed, protectionism is precisely its
motivation. But the protectionism that justifies the changes that I
shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect
them. It is the story of RCA and Armstrong; it is the dream of the
Causbys.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
99952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp69
67248"></a><p>
For the Internet has unleashed an extraordinary possibility for many
to participate in the process of building and cultivating a culture
that reaches far beyond local boundaries. That power has changed the
more efficient, more vibrant technology for building culture. They are
succeeding in their plan to remake the Internet before the Internet
remakes them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7003552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7004416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6970848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6971712"></a><p>
It doesn't seem this way to many. The battles over copyright and the
Internet seem remote to most. To the few who follow them, they seem
be permitted, and whether <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> will be protected. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war</span>»</span> that
has been waged against the technologies of the Internet—what
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) president Jack Valenti
-calls his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">own terrorist war</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7007728" class="footnote" name="idp7007728"><sup class="footnote">[13]</sup></a>—has been framed as a battle about the
+calls his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">own terrorist war</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6975024" class="footnote" name="idp6975024"><sup class="footnote">[13]</sup></a>—has been framed as a battle about the
rule of law and respect for property. To know which side to take in this
war, most think that we need only decide whether we're for property or
against it.
and a much more dramatic change. My fear is that unless we come to see
this change, the war to rid the world of Internet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates</span>»</span> will also rid our
culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7012304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7013312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7014320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7015072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6979600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6980608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6981616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6982368"></a><p>
These values built a tradition that, for at least the first 180 years of
our Republic, guaranteed creators the right to build freely upon their
past, and protected creators and innovators from either state or private
control. The First Amendment protected creators against state control.
-And as Professor Neil Netanel powerfully argues,<a href="#ftn.idp7016432" class="footnote" name="idp7016432"><sup class="footnote">[14]</sup></a>
+And as Professor Neil Netanel powerfully argues,<a href="#ftn.idp6983728" class="footnote" name="idp6983728"><sup class="footnote">[14]</sup></a>
copyright law, properly balanced, protected creators against private
control. Our tradition was thus neither Soviet nor the tradition of
patrons. It instead carved out a wide berth within which creators
Internet technologies to continue. There will be great harm to our
tradition and culture if it is allowed to continue unchecked. We must
come to understand the source of this war. We must resolve it soon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7022336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7023088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6989632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6990384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Like the Causbys'</strong></span> battle, this war is, in part, about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> 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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trespassing</span>»</span> upon legitimate claims of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> It is as plain to
us as it was to them that the law should intervene to stop this
trespass.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7028752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7029504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7030256"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6996048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6996800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6997552"></a><p>
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
the lucky Wright brothers, the Internet has not inspired a revolution
on its side.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7032032"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6999328"></a><p>
My hope is to push this common sense along. I have become increasingly
amazed by the power of this idea of intellectual property and, more
importantly, its power to disable critical thought by policy makers
silent in the face of these extremes because, as with Armstrong versus
RCA, the more powerful side has ensured that it has the more powerful
view?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p7037456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7038208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
m13232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idm12416"></a><p>
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
sheriff arresting an airplane for trespass. But the consequences of
this silliness will be much more profound.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p7040448"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
m10016"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The struggle</strong></span> that rages just now centers on two ideas: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> and
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> My aim in this book's next two parts is to explore these two
ideas.
depressingly compromised process of making law. This book is the story
of one more consequence of this form of corruption—a consequence
to which most of us remain oblivious.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6895696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6895696" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6862848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6862848" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>
St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South Hackensack, N.J.:
Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6909088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6909088" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6876320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6876320" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>
United States v. Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. The Court did find
that there could be a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> if the government's use of its land
effectively destroyed the value of the Causbys' land. This example was
Authorship,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. See also Paul
Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1984),
1112–13.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6912432"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6912048"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6938592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6938592" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6879664"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6879280"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6906000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6906000" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>
Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong</em>
(Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6935184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6935184" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a> See <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6902592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6902592" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a> See <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the
Electronic Era,</span>»</span> First Electronic Church of America, at
www.webstationone.com/fecha, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6953856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6953856" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6958400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6958400" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6921136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6921136" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6925808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6925808" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6975232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6975232" class="para"><sup class="para">[10] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6942528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6942528" class="para"><sup class="para">[10] </sup></a>
Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
Life Project, 15 April 2003: 6, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6988944" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6988944" class="para"><sup class="para">[11] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6956240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6956240" class="para"><sup class="para">[11] </sup></a>
This is not the only purpose of copyright, though it is the overwhelmingly
primary purpose of the copyright established in the federal constitution.
State copyright law historically protected not just the commercial interest in
control the spread of facts about them. See Samuel D. Warren and Louis
D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>»</span> Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193,
198–200.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6912304"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6993872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6993872" class="para"><sup class="para">[12] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6879536"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6961168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6961168" class="para"><sup class="para">[12] </sup></a>
See Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York: Prometheus Books,
2001), ch. 13.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6994640"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7007728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7007728" class="para"><sup class="para">[13] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6961936"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6975024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6975024" class="para"><sup class="para">[13] </sup></a>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates
Use New Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
Times</em>, 17 January 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7016432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7016432" class="para"><sup class="para">[14] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6983728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6983728" class="para"><sup class="para">[14] </sup></a>
Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law
Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7017712"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
48608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7050848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7051600"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6985008"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
24720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7026960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7027712"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Since the inception</strong></span> of the law regulating creative property, there has
been a war against <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> The precise contours of this concept,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is easy to
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
A person may use the copy by playing it, but he has no right to
rob the author of the profit, by multiplying copies and disposing
-of them for his own use.<a href="#ftn.idp7055088" class="footnote" name="idp7055088"><sup class="footnote">[15]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
56752"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7057856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
+of them for his own use.<a href="#ftn.idp7031200" class="footnote" name="idp7031200"><sup class="footnote">[15]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
32864"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7033968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
Today we are in the middle of another <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war</span>»</span> against <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> The
Internet has provoked this war. The Internet makes possible the
efficient spread of content. Peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing is among
sharing of copyrighted content. That sharing in turn has excited the
war, as copyright owners fear the sharing will <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob the author of the
profit.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
63216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
39328"></a><p>
The warriors have turned to the courts, to the legislatures, and
increasingly to technology to defend their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> against this
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> A generation of Americans, the warriors warn, is being
should have their permission. The taking of something of value
from someone else without permission is wrong. It is a form of
piracy.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
69712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7070464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7071216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
45824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7046576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7047328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
This view runs deep within the current debates. It is what NYU law
professor Rochelle Dreyfuss criticizes as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span>
-theory of creative property<a href="#ftn.idp7075968" class="footnote" name="idp7075968"><sup class="footnote">[16]</sup></a>
+theory of creative property<a href="#ftn.idp7052080" class="footnote" name="idp7052080"><sup class="footnote">[16]</sup></a>
—if there is value, then someone must have a
right to that value. It is the perspective that led a composers' rights
organization, ASCAP, to sue the Girl Scouts for failing to pay for the
-songs that girls sang around Girl Scout campfires.<a href="#ftn.idp7066208" class="footnote" name="idp7066208"><sup class="footnote">[17]</sup></a>
+songs that girls sang around Girl Scout campfires.<a href="#ftn.idp7042320" class="footnote" name="idp7042320"><sup class="footnote">[17]</sup></a>
There was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">value</span>»</span> (the songs) so there must have been a
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span>—even against the Girl Scouts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
82592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
58704"></a><p>
This idea is certainly a possible understanding of how creative
property should work. It might well be a possible design for a system
of law protecting creative property. But the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span>
theory of creative property has never been America's theory of
creative property. It has never taken hold within our law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
84880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
60992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
Instead, in our tradition, intellectual property is an instrument. It
sets the groundwork for a richly creative society but remains
subservient to the value of creativity. The current debate has this
work on the one hand and building upon or transforming that work on
the other. Copyright law at its birth had only publishing as its concern;
copyright law today regulates both.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
90624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
66736"></a><p>
Before the technologies of the Internet, this conflation didn't matter
all that much. The technologies of publishing were expensive; that
meant the vast majority of publishing was commercial. Commercial
entities could bear the burden of the law—even the burden of the
Byzantine complexity that copyright law has become. It was just one
more expense of doing business.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
91904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7093440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7094192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp70
68016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7069552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7070304"></a><p>
But with the birth of the Internet, this natural limit to the reach of
the law has disappeared. The law controls not just the creativity of
commercial creators but effectively that of anyone. Although that
of obscenely severe penalties. We may
be seeing, as Richard Florida writes, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rise of the Creative
-Class.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7097840" class="footnote" name="idp7097840"><sup class="footnote">[18]</sup></a>
+Class.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7073952" class="footnote" name="idp7073952"><sup class="footnote">[18]</sup></a>
Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary rise of regulation of
this creative class.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
101280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
077392"></a><p>
These burdens make no sense in our tradition. We should begin by
understanding that tradition a bit more and by placing in their proper
context the current battles about behavior labeled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span>
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7055088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7055088" class="para"><sup class="para">[15] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7031200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7031200" class="para"><sup class="para">[15] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7075968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7075968" class="para"><sup class="para">[16] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7052080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7052080" class="para"><sup class="para">[16] </sup></a>
See Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7066208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7066208" class="para"><sup class="para">[17] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7042320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7042320" class="para"><sup class="para">[17] </sup></a>
Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21 August 1996, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>; Jonathan
Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 24 November 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7080816"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7097840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7097840" class="para"><sup class="para">[18] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7056928"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7073952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7073952" class="para"><sup class="para">[18] </sup></a>
In <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York:
Basic Books, 2002), Richard Florida documents a shift in the nature of
and significance of this change, but I also believe the conditions
under which it will be enabled are much more tenuous.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7099408"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7100160"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7075520"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7076272"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Chapter 1. Chapter One: Creators</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimatedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsanimated"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatwillie"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmickeymouse"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1928</strong></span>, a cartoon character was born. An early Mickey Mouse
made his debut in May of that year, in a silent flop called <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
They responded almost instinctively to this union of sound and
motion. I thought they were kidding me. So they put me in the audience
and ran the action again. It was terrible, but it was wonderful! And
-it was something new!<a href="#ftn.idp7117984" class="footnote" name="idp7117984"><sup class="footnote">[19]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
119472"></a><p>
+it was something new!<a href="#ftn.idp7094096" class="footnote" name="idp7094096"><sup class="footnote">[19]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
095584"></a><p>
Disney's then partner, and one of animation's most extraordinary
talents, Ub Iwerks, put it more strongly: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I have never been so thrilled
in my life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.</span>»</span>
Disney's invention that set the standard that others struggled to
match. And quite often, Disney's great genius, his spark of
creativity, was built upon the work of others.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
121472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
097584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
This much is familiar. What you might not know is that 1928 also marks
another important transition. In that year, a comic (as opposed to
cartoon) genius created his last independently produced silent film.
Willie.
The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat Willie is a
-direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<a href="#ftn.idp7131712" class="footnote" name="idp7131712"><sup class="footnote">[20]</sup></a>
+direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<a href="#ftn.idp7107824" class="footnote" name="idp7107824"><sup class="footnote">[20]</sup></a>
and both are built upon a common song as a source. It is not just from
the invention of synchronized sound in <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> that we
get <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of
Steamboat Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span>
that we get Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey
Mouse.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
37760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7138736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7139712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7140688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
13872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7114848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7115824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7116800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowing</span>»</span> was nothing unique, either for Disney or for the
industry. Disney was always parroting the feature-length mainstream
-films of his day.<a href="#ftn.idp7145168" class="footnote" name="idp7145168"><sup class="footnote">[21]</sup></a>
+films of his day.<a href="#ftn.idp7121280" class="footnote" name="idp7121280"><sup class="footnote">[21]</sup></a>
So did many others. Early cartoons are filled with
knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of
ancient stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the
creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his
own extraordinary talent, and then burned that mix into the soul of
his culture. Rip, mix, and burn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
57872"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
33984"></a><p>
This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should
remember and celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no
creativity except this kind. We don't need to go that far to recognize
would be a bit misleading. It is, more precisely, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney
creativity</span>»</span>—a form of expression and genius that builds upon the
culture around us and makes it something different.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
60384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7161360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7162336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
36496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7137472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7138448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was
relatively fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was
therefore quite vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around
thirty years—for that minority of creative work that was in fact
-copyrighted.<a href="#ftn.idp7160000" class="footnote" name="idp7160000"><sup class="footnote">[22]</sup></a>
+copyrighted.<a href="#ftn.idp7136112" class="footnote" name="idp7136112"><sup class="footnote">[22]</sup></a>
That means that for thirty years, on average, the authors or
copyright holders of a creative work had an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive right</span>»</span> to control
certain uses of the work. To use this copyrighted work in limited ways
for Disney to use and build upon in 1928. It was free for
anyone— whether connected or not, whether rich or not, whether
approved or not—to use and build upon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
72352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7173712"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
48464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7149824"></a><p>
This is the ways things always were—until quite recently. For most
of our history, the public domain was just over the horizon. From
until 1978, the average copyright term was never more than thirty-two
to now be free for the next Walt Disney to build upon without
permission. Yet today, the public domain is presumptive only for
content from before the Great Depression.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
75936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7176912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7177888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7178864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7179840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7180816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp71
52048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7153024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7154000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7154976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7155952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7156928"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Of course</strong></span>, Walt Disney had no monopoly on <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney creativity.</span>»</span>
Nor does America. The norm of free culture has, until recently, and
except within totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and quite
competes with that market, but there is no sustained effort by those
who control the commercial manga market to shut the doujinshi market
down. It flourishes, despite the competition and despite the law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
202672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
178784"></a><p>
The most puzzling feature of the doujinshi market, for those trained
in the law, at least, is that it is allowed to exist at all. Under
Japanese copyright law, which in this respect (on paper) mirrors
the permission of the original copyright owner is illegal. It is an
infringement of the original copyright to make a copy or a derivative
work without the original copyright owner's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
205712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
181824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
Yet this illegal market exists and indeed flourishes in Japan, and in
the view of many, it is precisely because it exists that Japanese manga
flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
other. … That's how [the artists] learn to draw — by going into comic
books and not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them</span>»</span>
-and building from them.<a href="#ftn.idp7209456" class="footnote" name="idp7209456"><sup class="footnote">[23]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
210736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7211712"></a><p>
+and building from them.<a href="#ftn.idp7185568" class="footnote" name="idp7185568"><sup class="footnote">[23]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
186848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7187824"></a><p>
American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part
because of the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are
allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">there are these rules
and you have to stick to them.</span>»</span> There are things Superman <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cannot</span>»</span>
do. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">As a creator, it's frustrating having to stick to some parameters
which are fifty years old.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
214320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7216784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
190432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7192896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></a><p>
The norm in Japan mitigates this legal difficulty. Some say it is
precisely the benefit accruing to the Japanese manga market that
explains the mitigation. Temple University law professor Salil Mehra,
for example, hypothesizes that the manga market accepts these
technical violations because they spur the manga market to be more
wealthy and productive. Everyone would be worse off if doujinshi were
-banned, so the law does not ban doujinshi.<a href="#ftn.idp7219488" class="footnote" name="idp7219488"><sup class="footnote">[24]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
222016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7222992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7223968"></a><p>
+banned, so the law does not ban doujinshi.<a href="#ftn.idp7195600" class="footnote" name="idp7195600"><sup class="footnote">[24]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
198128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7199104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7200080"></a><p>
The problem with this story, however, as Mehra plainly acknowledges,
is that the mechanism producing this laissez faire response is not
clear. It may well be that the market as a whole is better off if
individual manga artists have sued doujinshi artists, why is there not
a more general pattern of blocking this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free taking</span>»</span> by the doujinshi
culture?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
26240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7227216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
02352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7203328"></a><p>
I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question
as often as I could. Perhaps the best account in the end was offered by
a friend from a major Japanese law firm. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We don't have enough
uncompensated sharing? Does piracy here hurt the victims of the
piracy, or does it help them? Would lawyers fighting this piracy help
their clients or hurt them?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
30864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
06976"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Let's pause</strong></span> for a moment.
</p><p>
If you're like I was a decade ago, or like most people are when they
We live in a world that celebrates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> I am one of those
celebrants. I believe in the value of property in general, and I also
believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7234528" class="footnote" name="idp7234528"><sup class="footnote">[25]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7210640" class="footnote" name="idp7210640"><sup class="footnote">[25]</sup></a>
A large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large,
diverse, and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual
property.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
40640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
16752"></a><p>
But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is
plenty of value out there that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> doesn't capture. I don't
mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">money can't buy you love,</span>»</span> but rather, value that is plainly
things remain free for the taking within a free culture, and that
freedom is good.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
46176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7248640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
22288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7224752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
The same with the doujinshi culture. If a doujinshi artist broke into
a publisher's office and ran off with a thousand copies of his latest
work—or even one copy—without paying, we'd have no hesitation in
saying the artist was wrong. In addition to having trespassed, he would
have stolen something of value. The law bans that stealing in whatever
form, whether large or small.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
53344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
29456"></a><p>
Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to
say that the copycat comic artists are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing.</span>»</span> This form of Walt
Disney creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in
particular find it hard to say why.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
55904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7256880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7257856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7258832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7259808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7260784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7261760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
32016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7232992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7233968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7234944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7235920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7236896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7237872"></a><p>
It's the same with a thousand examples that appear everywhere once you
begin to look. Scientists build upon the work of other scientists
without asking or paying for the privilege. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Excuse me, Professor
every society has left a certain bit of its culture free for the taking—free
societies more fully than unfree, perhaps, but all societies to some degree.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
64992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
41104"></a><p>
The hard question is therefore not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> a
culture is free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard
question instead is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?</span>»</span>
Free cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to
build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less. Ours was a
free culture. It is becoming much less so.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7269248"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7117984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7117984" class="para"><sup class="para">[19] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7245360"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7094096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7094096" class="para"><sup class="para">[19] </sup></a>
Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34–35.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7131712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7131712" class="para"><sup class="para">[20] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7107824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7107824" class="para"><sup class="para">[20] </sup></a>
I am grateful to David Gerstein and his careful history, described at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.
(Baron), and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). A sixth song, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the
Straw,</span>»</span> was already in the public domain. Letter from David Smith to
Harry Surden, 10 July 2003, on file with author.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7145168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7145168" class="para"><sup class="para">[21] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7121280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7121280" class="para"><sup class="para">[21] </sup></a>
He was also a fan of the public domain. See Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5 March 2002, at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7160000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7160000" class="para"><sup class="para">[22] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7136112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7136112" class="para"><sup class="para">[22] </sup></a>
Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">average</span>»</span> term by
term is 32.2 years. For the renewal data and other relevant data, see the
Web site associated with this book, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #6</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7209456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7209456" class="para"><sup class="para">[23] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7185568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7185568" class="para"><sup class="para">[23] </sup></a>
For an excellent history, see Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing Comics</em> (New
York: Perennial, 2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7219488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7219488" class="para"><sup class="para">[24] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7195600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7195600" class="para"><sup class="para">[24] </sup></a>
See Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law
artists may be better off collectively if they set aside their
individual self-interest and decide not to press their legal
rights. This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma solved.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7234528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7234528" class="para"><sup class="para">[25] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7210640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7210640" class="para"><sup class="para">[25] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7235168"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7211280"></a>
The term <em class="citetitle">intellectual property</em> is of relatively recent origin. See
Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York
University Press, 2001). See also Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>
describes a set of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights — copyright, patents,
trademark, and trade-secret — but the nature of those rights is
very different.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. Chapter Two: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
71984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. Chapter Two: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
48096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1839</strong></span>, Louis Daguerre invented
the first practical technology for producing what we would call
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">photographs.</span>»</span> Appropriately enough, they were called
zealous and wealthy amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre
Association that helped regulate the industry, as do all such
associations, by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
77408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
53520"></a><p>
Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong.
This pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatic pictures.</span>»</span> William Talbot soon discovered a process for
Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed
rolls of it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was
marketed on the basis of its simplicity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You press the button and we
-do the rest.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7285456" class="footnote" name="idp7285456"><sup class="footnote">[26]</sup></a> As he described in <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
+do the rest.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7261568" class="footnote" name="idp7261568"><sup class="footnote">[26]</sup></a> As he described in <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
The principle of the Kodak system is the separation of the work that
any person whomsoever can do in making a photograph, from the work
practice of photography the necessity for exceptional facilities or,
in fact, any special knowledge of the art. It can be employed without
preliminary study, without a darkroom and without
-chemicals.<a href="#ftn.idp7209168" class="footnote" name="idp7209168"><sup class="footnote">[27]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
90608"></a><p>
+chemicals.<a href="#ftn.idp7185280" class="footnote" name="idp7185280"><sup class="footnote">[27]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
66720"></a><p>
For $25, anyone could make pictures. The camera came preloaded
with film, and when it had been used, the camera was returned to an
Eastman factory, where the film was developed. Over time, of course,
year later, Kodak was printing more than six thousand negatives a day.
From 1888 through 1909, while industrial production was rising by 4.7
percent, photographic equipment and material sales increased by 11
-percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7292480" class="footnote" name="idp7292480"><sup class="footnote">[28]</sup></a> Eastman Kodak's sales during the same period experienced
-an average annual increase of over 17 percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7293376" class="footnote" name="idp7293376"><sup class="footnote">[29]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
94272"></a><p>
+percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7268592" class="footnote" name="idp7268592"><sup class="footnote">[28]</sup></a> Eastman Kodak's sales during the same period experienced
+an average annual increase of over 17 percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7269488" class="footnote" name="idp7269488"><sup class="footnote">[29]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
70384"></a><p>
The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not
permanent record of his family and its activities. … For the first
time in history there exists an authentic visual record of the
appearance and activities of the common man made without [literary]
-interpretation or bias.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7287888" class="footnote" name="idp7287888"><sup class="footnote">[30]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
97360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7298368"></a><p>
+interpretation or bias.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7264000" class="footnote" name="idp7264000"><sup class="footnote">[30]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp72
73472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7274480"></a><p>
In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of
expression. The pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of
expression, of course. But it took years of training before they could
creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic tools gave ordinary
people a way to express themselves more easily than any tools could
have before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
300848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
276960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
What was required for this technology to flourish? Obviously,
Eastman's genius was an important part. But also important was the
legal environment within which Eastman's invention grew. For early in
that could well have changed the course of photography substantially.
Courts were asked whether the photographer, amateur or professional,
required permission before he could capture and print whatever image
-he wanted. Their answer was no.<a href="#ftn.idp7304096" class="footnote" name="idp7304096"><sup class="footnote">[31]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
307296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><p>
+he wanted. Their answer was no.<a href="#ftn.idp7280208" class="footnote" name="idp7280208"><sup class="footnote">[31]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
283408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><p>
The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
familiar. The photographer was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> something from the person or
building whose photograph he shot—pirating something of
Mickey, so, too, should these photographers not be free to take images
that they thought valuable.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
312304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7313056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
288416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7289168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></a><p>
On the other side was an argument that should be familiar, as well.
Sure, there may be something of value being used. But citizens should
have the right to capture at least those images that stand in public view.
(Louis Brandeis, who would become a Supreme Court Justice, thought
-the rule should be different for images from private spaces.<a href="#ftn.idp7315648" class="footnote" name="idp7315648"><sup class="footnote">[32]</sup></a>) It may be that this means that the photographer
+the rule should be different for images from private spaces.<a href="#ftn.idp7291760" class="footnote" name="idp7291760"><sup class="footnote">[32]</sup></a>) It may be that this means that the photographer
gets something for nothing. Just as Disney could take inspiration from
<em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. or the Brothers Grimm, the photographer should be
free to capture an image without compensating the source.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
319600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
295712"></a><p>
Fortunately for Mr. Eastman, and for photography in general, these
early decisions went in favor of the pirates. In general, no
permission would be required before an image could be captured and
people: commercial photographers who snap pictures of famous people
for commercial purposes have more restrictions than the rest of
us. But in the ordinary case, the image can be captured without
-clearing the rights to do the capturing.<a href="#ftn.idp7321424" class="footnote" name="idp7321424"><sup class="footnote">[33]</sup></a>)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
24624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7325376"></a><p>
+clearing the rights to do the capturing.<a href="#ftn.idp7297536" class="footnote" name="idp7297536"><sup class="footnote">[33]</sup></a>)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
00736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7301488"></a><p>
We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had
the law gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the
photographer, then the photographer would have had to demonstrate
imagine the law then requiring that some form of permission be
demonstrated before a company developed pictures. We could imagine a
system developing to demonstrate that permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
28144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7330352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7331360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
04256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7306464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7307472"></a><p>
But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be
that growth would have been realized. And certainly, nothing like that
growth in a democratic technology of expression would have been
realized.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
32880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7334688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7335664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7336640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7337616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
08992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7310800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7311776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7312752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7313728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>If you drive</strong></span> through San
Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses
painted over with colorful and striking images, and the logo
increasingly so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has
fallen dramatically. As one analyst puts it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Five years ago, a good
real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get
-professional quality for $595.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7347664" class="footnote" name="idp7347664"><sup class="footnote">[34]</sup></a>
+professional quality for $595.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7323776" class="footnote" name="idp7323776"><sup class="footnote">[34]</sup></a>
These buses are filled with technology that would have cost hundreds
of thousands just ten years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not
just buses like this, but classrooms across the country where kids are
learning more and more of something teachers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">media literacy.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
50352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
26464"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media literacy,</span>»</span> as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of Just
Think!, puts it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is the ability … to understand, analyze, and
deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the
way media works, the way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and
the way people access it.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
52816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
28928"></a><p>
This may seem like an odd way to think about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">literacy.</span>»</span> For most
people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway
and noticing split infinitives are the things that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">literate</span>»</span> people know
about.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
55088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7355840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7356592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
31200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7331952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7332704"></a><p>
Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of
television commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000
-commercials generally,<a href="#ftn.idp7358016" class="footnote" name="idp7358016"><sup class="footnote">[35]</sup></a>
+commercials generally,<a href="#ftn.idp7334128" class="footnote" name="idp7334128"><sup class="footnote">[35]</sup></a>
it is increasingly important to understand the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grammar</span>»</span> of media. For
just as there is a grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one
for media. And just as kids learn how to write by writing lots of
how difficult media is. Or more fundamentally, few of us have a sense
of how media works, how it holds an audience or leads it through a
story, how it triggers emotion or builds suspense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
60976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
37088"></a><p>
It took filmmaking a generation before it could do these things well.
But even then, the knowledge was in the filming, not in writing about
the film. The skill came from experiencing the making of a film, not
from reading a book about it. One learns to write by writing and then
reflecting upon what one has written. One learns to write with images
by making them and then reflecting upon what one has created.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
64752"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
40864"></a><p>
This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film,
as Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the
USC School of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was
about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the placement of objects, color, … rhythm, pacing, and
-texture.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7352336" class="footnote" name="idp7352336"><sup class="footnote">[36]</sup></a>
+texture.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7328448" class="footnote" name="idp7328448"><sup class="footnote">[36]</sup></a>
But as computers open up an interactive space where a story is
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">played</span>»</span> as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple
control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author
But when he tried to design a computer game based on one of his
works, it was a new craft he had to learn. How to lead people through
a game without their feeling they have been led was not obvious, even
-to a wildly successful author.<a href="#ftn.idp7370000" class="footnote" name="idp7370000"><sup class="footnote">[37]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
72912"></a><p>
+to a wildly successful author.<a href="#ftn.idp7346112" class="footnote" name="idp7346112"><sup class="footnote">[37]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
49024"></a><p>
This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley
describes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">people are very surprised about how they are led through a
film. [I]t is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you
and this literacy in particular, is to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">empower people to choose the
appropriate language for what they need to create or
-express.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7378640" class="footnote" name="idp7378640"><sup class="footnote">[38]</sup></a> It is to enable students <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to communicate in the
-language of the twenty-first century.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7380624" class="footnote" name="idp7380624"><sup class="footnote">[39]</sup></a>
+express.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7354752" class="footnote" name="idp7354752"><sup class="footnote">[38]</sup></a> It is to enable students <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to communicate in the
+language of the twenty-first century.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7356736" class="footnote" name="idp7356736"><sup class="footnote">[39]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbarishstephanie"></a><p>
As with any language, this language comes more easily to some than to
others. It doesn't necessarily come more easily to those who excel in
failure. But Daley and Barish ran a program that gave kids an
opportunity to use film to express meaning about something the
students know something about—gun violence.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
83008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
59120"></a><p>
The class was held on Friday afternoons, and it created a relatively
new problem for the school. While the challenge in most classes was
getting the kids to come, the challenge in this class was keeping them
can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which
<span class="emphasis"><em>these</em></span> ideas can be expressed well. The power of
this message depended upon its connection to this form of expression.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
89728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
65840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But isn't education about teaching kids to write?</span>»</span> I asked. In part,
make a little movie.</span>»</span> But instead, really help you take these elements
that you understand, that are your language, and construct meaning
about the topic.…
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
96192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
72432"></a><p>
That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of
course, is eventually, as it has happened in all these classes, they
bump up against the fact, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I need to explain this and I really need
didn't speak very well. But they had come to understand that they
had a lot of power with this language.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
99872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7400848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7401824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7402800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7405008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp73
76032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7377008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7377984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7378960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7381168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>When two planes</strong></span> crashed into the
World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a
Pennsylvania field, all media around the world shifted to this
and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have
increasingly come to expect it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">news as entertainment,</span>»</span> even if the
entertainment is tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
4096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7386208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7386960"></a><p>
But in addition to this produced news about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedy of September
11,</span>»</span> those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different
production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same
the term in his book <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, around a news event that had
captured the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there
was also the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
616"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
389584"></a><p>
I don't mean simply to praise the Internet—though I do think the
people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean
instead to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a
and obviously not just that events are commented upon critically, but
that this mix of captured images, sound, and commentary can be widely
spread practically instantaneously.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
424976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
392208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
September 11 was not an aberration. It was a beginning. Around the
same time, a form of communication that has grown dramatically was
just beginning to come into public consciousness: the Web-log, or
such as in Japan, it functions very much like a diary. In those
cultures, it records private facts in a public way—it's a kind
of electronic <em class="citetitle">Jerry Springer</em>, available anywhere in the world.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
431712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
398944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></a><p>
But in the United States, blogs have taken on a very different
character. There are some who use the space simply to talk about
their private life. But there are many who use the space to engage in
in those elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally
professionalized and routinized. Most of us think this is democracy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
41328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7442304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7443280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7444256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7446496"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
08560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7409536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7410512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7411488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7413728"></a><p>
But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy
means rule by the people, but rule means something more than mere
elections. In our tradition, it also means control through reasoned
deliberated. Members argued about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> result; they tried to
persuade each other of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> result, and in criminal cases at
least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to
-come to an end.<a href="#ftn.idp7449488" class="footnote" name="idp7449488"><sup class="footnote">[40]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
50768"></a><p>
+come to an end.<a href="#ftn.idp7416720" class="footnote" name="idp7416720"><sup class="footnote">[40]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
18000"></a><p>
Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its
place, there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some
-are pushing to create just such an institution.<a href="#ftn.idp7452208" class="footnote" name="idp7452208"><sup class="footnote">[41]</sup></a>
+are pushing to create just such an institution.<a href="#ftn.idp7419440" class="footnote" name="idp7419440"><sup class="footnote">[41]</sup></a>
And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or
place for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">democratic deliberation</span>»</span> to occur.
strong norm against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about
politics with people you agree with. But it is rude to argue about
politics with people you disagree with. Political discourse becomes
-isolated, and isolated discourse becomes more extreme.<a href="#ftn.idp7456320" class="footnote" name="idp7456320"><sup class="footnote">[42]</sup></a> We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very
+isolated, and isolated discourse becomes more extreme.<a href="#ftn.idp7423552" class="footnote" name="idp7423552"><sup class="footnote">[42]</sup></a> We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very
little beyond what our friends say.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
58944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7462416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7463392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7464368"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
26176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7429648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7430624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7431600"></a><p>
Enter the blog. The blog's very architecture solves one part of this
problem. People post when they want to post, and people read when they
want to read. The most difficult time is synchronous time.
the left. Some of the most popular sites are conservative or libertarian,
but there are many of all political stripes. And even blogs that are not
political cover political issues when the occasion merits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
67248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
34480"></a><p>
The significance of these blogs is tiny now, though not so tiny. The
name Howard Dean may well have faded from the 2004 presidential race
but for blogs. Yet even if the number of readers is small, the reading
is having an effect.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
68624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7469376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
35856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7436608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></a><p>
One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misspoke</span>»</span> at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising
space. The bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and
more instances of the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misspeaking</span>»</span> emerged. Finally, the story
broke back into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to
-resign as senate majority leader.<a href="#ftn.idp7474800" class="footnote" name="idp7474800"><sup class="footnote">[43]</sup></a>
+resign as senate majority leader.<a href="#ftn.idp7442032" class="footnote" name="idp7442032"><sup class="footnote">[43]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediacommercialimperativesof"></a><p>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
78240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7479216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
45472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7446448"></a><p>
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
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
81040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
48272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle
from the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the
conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of
get it out of the way.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
86736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7487488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7488496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7489248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
53968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7454720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7455728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7456480"></a><p>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7448272" class="footnote" name="idp7448272"><sup class="footnote">[44]</sup></a>
+its own employees.<a href="#ftn.idp7415504" class="footnote" name="idp7415504"><sup class="footnote">[44]</sup></a>
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
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 <span class="emphasis"><em>they</em></span> were writing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the story.</span>»</span>)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
92976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp74
60208"></a><p>
Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the
debate—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amateur</span>»</span> 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.<a href="#ftn.idp7494944" class="footnote" name="idp7494944"><sup class="footnote">[45]</sup></a>
+retell what they had seen.<a href="#ftn.idp7462176" class="footnote" name="idp7462176"><sup class="footnote">[45]</sup></a>
And it drives readers to read across the range of accounts and
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulate,</span>»</span> as Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is
with blogs. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It's going to become an essential skill,</span>»</span> Winer predicts,
for public figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's
not clear that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalism</span>»</span> is happy about this—some journalists
-have been told to curtail their blogging.<a href="#ftn.idp7498464" class="footnote" name="idp7498464"><sup class="footnote">[46]</sup></a>
+have been told to curtail their blogging.<a href="#ftn.idp7465696" class="footnote" name="idp7465696"><sup class="footnote">[46]</sup></a>
But it is clear that we are still in transition. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A
And as the inclusion of content in this space is the least infringing use
of the Internet (meaning infringing on copyright), Winer said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we will
be the last thing that gets shut down.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
507392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
474624"></a><p>
This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">you
don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper.</span>»</span>
That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As
Today there are probably a couple of million blogs where such writing
happens. When there are ten million, there will be something
extraordinary to report.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
510016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7510992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7511968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7512944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7513920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7514896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7515872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
477248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7478224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7479200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7480176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7481152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7482128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7483104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> is the chief
scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work, as his Web site
describes it, is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">human learning and … the creation of
you are visual, if you are interested in film … [then] there is a
lot you can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor
these multiple forms of intelligence.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
529840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7530816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
497072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7498048"></a><p>
Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and
Just Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well
<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>)
has developed a powerful argument in favor of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right to
tinker</span>»</span> as it applies to computer science and to knowledge in
-general.<a href="#ftn.idp7534976" class="footnote" name="idp7534976"><sup class="footnote">[47]</sup></a>
+general.<a href="#ftn.idp7502208" class="footnote" name="idp7502208"><sup class="footnote">[47]</sup></a>
But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more fundamental. It is
about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because of the law.
</p><p>
natural tendencies of today's digital kids. … We're building an
architecture that unleashes 60 percent of the brain [and] a legal
system that closes down that part of the brain.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
39760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
06992"></a><p>
We're building a technology that takes the magic of Kodak, mixes
moving images and sound, and adds a space for commentary and an
opportunity to spread that creativity everywhere. But we're building
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No way to run a culture,</span>»</span> as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in
chapter <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Chapter 9. Chapter Nine: Collectors">9</a>,
quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7285456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7285456" class="para"><sup class="para">[26] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7261568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7261568" class="para"><sup class="para">[26] </sup></a>
Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7209168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7209168" class="para"><sup class="para">[27] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7185280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7185280" class="para"><sup class="para">[27] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7289088"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7265200"></a>
Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York: Taplinger Publishing,
1977), 53.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7292480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7292480" class="para"><sup class="para">[28] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7268592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7268592" class="para"><sup class="para">[28] </sup></a>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7293376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7293376" class="para"><sup class="para">[29] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7269488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7269488" class="para"><sup class="para">[29] </sup></a>
Based on a chart in Jenkins, p. 178.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7287888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7287888" class="para"><sup class="para">[30] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7264000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7264000" class="para"><sup class="para">[30] </sup></a>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7304096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7304096" class="para"><sup class="para">[31] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7280208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7280208" class="para"><sup class="para">[31] </sup></a>
For illustrative cases, see, for example, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
<em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>, 123090 S.W. 364, 366
(Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.
Dist. Ct. 1894).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7315648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7315648" class="para"><sup class="para">[32] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7291760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7291760" class="para"><sup class="para">[32] </sup></a>
Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7317184"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7317936"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7321424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7321424" class="para"><sup class="para">[33] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7293296"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7294048"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7297536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7297536" class="para"><sup class="para">[33] </sup></a>
See Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary
Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">California Law
Review</em> 48 (1960) 398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Samsung Electronics America,
Inc</em>., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951
(1993).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7347664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7347664" class="para"><sup class="para">[34] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7323776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7323776" class="para"><sup class="para">[34] </sup></a>
H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
cadalyst, February 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7358016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7358016" class="para"><sup class="para">[35] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7334128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7334128" class="para"><sup class="para">[35] </sup></a>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em> (Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on Family and TV
Study,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May 1997, B6.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7352336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7352336" class="para"><sup class="para">[36] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7328448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7328448" class="para"><sup class="para">[36] </sup></a>
Interview with Elizabeth Daley and Stephanie Barish, 13 December
2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7367456"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7368208"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7370000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7370000" class="para"><sup class="para">[37] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7343568"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7344320"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7346112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7346112" class="para"><sup class="para">[37] </sup></a>
See Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>»</span> E!online, 4
November 2000, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Timeline,</span>»</span> 22 November 2000,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7378640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7378640" class="para"><sup class="para">[38] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7354752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7354752" class="para"><sup class="para">[38] </sup></a>
Interview with Daley and Barish.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7379408"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7380624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7380624" class="para"><sup class="para">[39] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7355520"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7356736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7356736" class="para"><sup class="para">[39] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7449488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7449488" class="para"><sup class="para">[40] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7416720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7416720" class="para"><sup class="para">[40] </sup></a>
See, for example, Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in America</em>,
bk. 1, trans. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books, 2000), ch. 16.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7452208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7452208" class="para"><sup class="para">[41] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7419440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7419440" class="para"><sup class="para">[41] </sup></a>
Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of
Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7456320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7456320" class="para"><sup class="para">[42] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7423552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7423552" class="para"><sup class="para">[42] </sup></a>
Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001),
65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7474800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7474800" class="para"><sup class="para">[43] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7442032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7442032" class="para"><sup class="para">[43] </sup></a>
Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot,</span>»</span> New
York Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7448272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7448272" class="para"><sup class="para">[44] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7415504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7415504" class="para"><sup class="para">[44] </sup></a>
Telephone interview with David Winer, 16 April 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7494944" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7494944" class="para"><sup class="para">[45] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7462176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7462176" class="para"><sup class="para">[45] </sup></a>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
Information Online,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci
D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall,</span>»</span>
Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7498464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7498464" class="para"><sup class="para">[46] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7465696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7465696" class="para"><sup class="para">[46] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7500896"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7501648"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7502400"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7503152"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7468128"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7468880"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7469632"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7470384"></a>
See Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not all news organizations have
been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin Sites, a CNN
request. Last year Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em> 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.</span>»</span>)
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7534976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7534976" class="para"><sup class="para">[47] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7502208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7502208" class="para"><sup class="para">[47] </sup></a>
See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Communications
of the Association for Computer Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. Chapter Three: Catalogs</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
44384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7545136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. Chapter Three: Catalogs</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
11616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7512368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In the fall</strong></span> of 2002, Jesse Jordan
of Oceanside, New York, enrolled as a freshman at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, New York. His major at RPI was
content. Jesse's search engine was built to take advantage of this
technology. It used Microsoft's network file system to build an index
of all the files available within the RPI network.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
62304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
30000"></a><p>
Jesse's wasn't the first search engine built for the RPI network.
Indeed, his engine was a simple modification of engines that others
had built. His single most important improvement over those engines
modified the system a bit to fix that problem, by adding a button that
a user could click to see if the machine holding the file was still
on-line.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
64304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
32000"></a><p>
Jesse's engine went on-line in late October. Over the following six
months, he continued to tweak it to improve its functionality. By
March, the system was functioning quite well. Jesse had more than one
million files in his directory, including every type of content that might
be on users' computers.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
65984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
33680"></a><p>
Thus the index his search engine produced included pictures, which
students could use to put on their own Web sites; copies of notes or
research; copies of information pamphlets; movie clips that students
users of the RPI network made available in a public folder of their
computer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
68016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7568768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
35712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7536464"></a><p>
But the index also included music files. In fact, one quarter of the
files that Jesse's search engine listed were music files. But that
means, of course, that three quarters were not, and—so that this
this experiment. He was a kid tinkering with technology in an
environment where tinkering with technology was precisely what he was
supposed to do.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
77472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
45168"></a><p>
On April 3, 2003, Jesse was contacted by the dean of students at
RPI. The dean informed Jesse that the Recording Industry Association
of America, the RIAA, would be filing a lawsuit against him and three
RPI community to get access to content, which Jesse had not himself
created or posted, and the vast majority of which had nothing to do
with music.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
81616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7582592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7583600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7586256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
49744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7550720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7551728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7554384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></a><p>
But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a
network and had therefore <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully</span>»</span> violated copyright laws. They
claim $150,000 per infringement. As the RIAA alleged more than one
hundred specific copyright infringements, they therefore demanded that
Jesse pay them at least $15,000,000.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
90800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7591552"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
58928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7559680"></a><p>
Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one other
student at RPI, one at Michigan Technical University, and one at
Princeton. Their situations were similar to Jesse's. Though each case
the United States to award the plaintiffs close to $100
<span class="emphasis"><em>billion</em></span>—six times the
<span class="emphasis"><em>total</em></span> profit of the film industry in
-2001.<a href="#ftn.idp7594208" class="footnote" name="idp7594208"><sup class="footnote">[48]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
95984"></a><p>
+2001.<a href="#ftn.idp7562336" class="footnote" name="idp7562336"><sup class="footnote">[48]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
64112"></a><p>
Jesse called his parents. They were supportive but a bit frightened.
An uncle was a lawyer. He began negotiations with the RIAA. They
demanded to know how much money Jesse had. Jesse had saved
$12,000 from summer jobs and other employment. They demanded
$12,000 to dismiss the case.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
97648"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
65776"></a><p>
The RIAA wanted Jesse to admit to doing something wrong. He
refused. They wanted him to agree to an injunction that would
essentially make it impossible for him to work in many fields of
case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You don't want to pay another
visit to a dentist like me.</span>»</span>) And throughout, the RIAA insisted it
would not settle the case until it took every penny Jesse had saved.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
99808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp75
68368"></a><p>
Jesse's family was outraged at these claims. They wanted to fight.
But Jesse's uncle worked to educate the family about the nature of the
American legal system. Jesse could fight the RIAA. He might even
</p><p>
So Jesse faced a mafia-like choice: $250,000 and a chance at winning,
or $12,000 and a settlement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
602192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7603200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7604208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
570752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7571760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7572768"></a><p>
The recording industry insists this is a matter of law and morality.
Let's put the law aside for a moment and think about the morality.
Where is the morality in a lawsuit like this? What is the virtue in
scapegoatism? The RIAA is an extraordinarily powerful lobby. The
president of the RIAA is reported to make more than $1 million a year.
Artists, on the other hand, are not well paid. The average recording
-artist makes $45,900.<a href="#ftn.idp7605984" class="footnote" name="idp7605984"><sup class="footnote">[49]</sup></a>
+artist makes $45,900.<a href="#ftn.idp7574480" class="footnote" name="idp7574480"><sup class="footnote">[49]</sup></a>
There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect
and direct policy. So where is the morality in taking money from a
-student for running a search engine?<a href="#ftn.idp7607472" class="footnote" name="idp7607472"><sup class="footnote">[50]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
609136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7610352"></a><p>
+student for running a search engine?<a href="#ftn.idp7576048" class="footnote" name="idp7576048"><sup class="footnote">[50]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
577712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7578848"></a><p>
On June 23, Jesse wired his savings to the lawyer working for the
RIAA. The case against him was then dismissed. And with this, this
kid who had tinkered a computer into a $15 million lawsuit became an
I. … He's not a tree hugger. … I think it's bizarre that they would
pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the
wrong message. And he wants to correct the record.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7614256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7615232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7616208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7617184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7618320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7619296"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7594208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7594208" class="para"><sup class="para">[48] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7582752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7583728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7584704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7585680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7586816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7587792"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7562336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7562336" class="para"><sup class="para">[48] </sup></a>
Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks:
Suit Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media Group LCC</em> 6
(2003): 5, available at 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7605984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7605984" class="para"><sup class="para">[49] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7574480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7574480" class="para"><sup class="para">[49] </sup></a>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
(27–2042—Musicians and Singers). See also National Endowment for
the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7607472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7607472" class="para"><sup class="para">[50] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7576048" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7576048" class="para"><sup class="para">[50] </sup></a>
Douglas Lichtman makes a related point in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and Punishment,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10 September 2003, A24.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. Chapter Four: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
623712"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. Chapter Four: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
592208"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>If <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> means</strong></span>
using the creative property of others without their
permission—if <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span> is
generation's pirates join this generation's country club—until
now.
</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<a href="#ftn.idp7628416" class="footnote" name="idp7628416"><sup class="footnote">[51]</sup></a>
+The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<a href="#ftn.idp7596912" class="footnote" name="idp7596912"><sup class="footnote">[51]</sup></a>
Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast to California in
the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that patents
granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls were
summer of 1909 the independent movement was in full-swing,
with producers and theater owners using illegal equipment and
imported film stock to create their own underground market.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
33712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7634352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7635104"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
02208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7602848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7603600"></a><p>
With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement
by forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company
unlicensed films, and effectively monopolized distribution with the
acquisition of all U.S. film exchanges, except for the one owned by
the independent William Fox who defied the Trust even after his
-license was revoked.<a href="#ftn.idp7636752" class="footnote" name="idp7636752"><sup class="footnote">[52]</sup></a>
+license was revoked.<a href="#ftn.idp7605248" class="footnote" name="idp7605248"><sup class="footnote">[52]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independents,</span>»</span> were companies like
Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
resisted. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
`accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
-sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7642208" class="footnote" name="idp7642208"><sup class="footnote">[53]</sup></a>
+sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7610704" class="footnote" name="idp7610704"><sup class="footnote">[53]</sup></a>
That led the independents to flee the East
Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that
filmmakers there could pirate his inventions without fear of the
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Recorded Music</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings"></a><p>
The record industry was born of another kind of piracy, though to see
how requires a bit of detail about the way the law regulates music.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
50416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
18912"></a><p>
At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines
for reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player
piano), the law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of
1899 hit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>»</span> the law said I would have to pay for the right
to get a copy of the musical score, and I would also have to pay for the
right to perform it publicly.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
52464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
20960"></a><p>
But what if I wanted to record <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>»</span> using Edison's phonograph
or Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear
enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I
then made copies of those recordings. Because of this gap in the law,
then, I could effectively pirate someone else's song without paying
its composer anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
54624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
23120"></a><p>
The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about
this capacity to pirate. As South Dakota senator Alfred Kittredge
put it,
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7657040"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7625536"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an
opera. A publisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and
copyrights it. Along come the phonographic companies and companies who
cut music rolls and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the
composer and publisher without any regard for [their]
-rights.<a href="#ftn.idp7658784" class="footnote" name="idp7658784"><sup class="footnote">[54]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
61328"></a><p>
+rights.<a href="#ftn.idp7627280" class="footnote" name="idp7627280"><sup class="footnote">[54]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
29824"></a><p>
The innovators who developed the technology to record other
people's works were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and
-genius of American composers,</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7662784" class="footnote" name="idp7662784"><sup class="footnote">[55]</sup></a>
+genius of American composers,</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7631280" class="footnote" name="idp7631280"><sup class="footnote">[55]</sup></a>
and the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>»</span>
-was thereby <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">at the complete mercy of this one pirate.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7664352" class="footnote" name="idp7664352"><sup class="footnote">[56]</sup></a>
+was thereby <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">at the complete mercy of this one pirate.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7632848" class="footnote" name="idp7632848"><sup class="footnote">[56]</sup></a>
As John Philip
Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When they make money
-out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7665696" class="footnote" name="idp7665696"><sup class="footnote">[57]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
66720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7667472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7668224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
+out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7634192" class="footnote" name="idp7634192"><sup class="footnote">[57]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
35216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7635968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7636720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
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
player piano argued that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the
introduction of automatic music players has not deprived any composer
of anything he had before their introduction.</span>»</span> Rather, the machines
-increased the sales of sheet music.<a href="#ftn.idp7676000" class="footnote" name="idp7676000"><sup class="footnote">[58]</sup></a> In any case, the innovators argued, the job of
+increased the sales of sheet music.<a href="#ftn.idp7644496" class="footnote" name="idp7644496"><sup class="footnote">[58]</sup></a> In any case, the innovators argued, the job of
Congress was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to consider first the interest of [the public], whom
they represent, and whose servants they are.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All talk about
`theft,'</span>»</span> the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company
wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas
musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by
-statute.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7678384" class="footnote" name="idp7678384"><sup class="footnote">[59]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
79472"></a><p>
+statute.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7646880" class="footnote" name="idp7646880"><sup class="footnote">[59]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
47968"></a><p>
The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
<span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the
law to make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical
Grisham is thus set by Grisham, and copyright law ordinarily says you
have no permission to use Grisham's work except with permission of
Grisham.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
88304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7689280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
56800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7657776"></a><p>
But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And
thus, in effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording
industry through a kind of piracy—by giving recording artists a
of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress was quite explicit about its
reasons for granting this right. Its fear was the monopoly power of
rights holders, and that that power would stifle follow-on
-creativity.<a href="#ftn.idp7631584" class="footnote" name="idp7631584"><sup class="footnote">[60]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
93056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7694032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7695008"></a><p>
+creativity.<a href="#ftn.idp7600080" class="footnote" name="idp7600080"><sup class="footnote">[60]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
61552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7662528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7663504"></a><p>
While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary
anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these rights. They argue that
the result has been an outpouring of recorded music, with the public
being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
-choice.<a href="#ftn.idp7698208" class="footnote" name="idp7698208"><sup class="footnote">[61]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
99472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7700448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7701424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7702400"></a><p>
+choice.<a href="#ftn.idp7667424" class="footnote" name="idp7667424"><sup class="footnote">[61]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp76
68688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7669664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7670640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7671616"></a><p>
By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their
creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto"></a><p>
Radio was also born of piracy.
</p><p>
When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public performance</span>»</span> of the composer's work.<a href="#ftn.idp7708992" class="footnote" name="idp7708992"><sup class="footnote">[62]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public performance</span>»</span> of the composer's work.<a href="#ftn.idp7678208" class="footnote" name="idp7678208"><sup class="footnote">[62]</sup></a>
As I described above, the law gives the composer (or copyright holder)
an exclusive right to public performances of his work. The radio
station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
law were perfectly consistent, the radio station would have to pay the
recording artist for his work, just as it pays the composer of the
music for his work.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7716416"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7685632"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protected</span>»</span> right. The radio station thus gets to
<span class="emphasis"><em>pirate</em></span> the value of Madonna's work without paying
her anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
722176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7723152"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
691024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7692000"></a><p>
No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law
ordinarily gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making
the choice for him or her, the law gives the radio station the right
to take something for nothing.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
724896"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Cable TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
693744"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Cable TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
</p><p>
When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
broadcasters' content, but more egregiously than anything Napster ever
did— Napster never charged for the content it enabled others to
give away.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
729296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7730416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7731168"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
698144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7699264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7700016"></a><p>
Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.
Rosel Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unfair and potentially destructive competition.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7732576" class="footnote" name="idp7732576"><sup class="footnote">[63]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unfair and potentially destructive competition.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7701424" class="footnote" name="idp7701424"><sup class="footnote">[63]</sup></a>
There may have been a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public interest</span>»</span> in spreading the reach of cable
TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the National Association
of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during testimony, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does public
-interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7735296" class="footnote" name="idp7735296"><sup class="footnote">[64]</sup></a>
+interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7704144" class="footnote" name="idp7704144"><sup class="footnote">[64]</sup></a>
As another broadcaster put it,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the
only business I know of where the product that is being sold is not
-paid for.<a href="#ftn.idp7737008" class="footnote" name="idp7737008"><sup class="footnote">[65]</sup></a>
+paid for.<a href="#ftn.idp7705856" class="footnote" name="idp7705856"><sup class="footnote">[65]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable enough:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
All we are asking for is a very simple thing, that people who now
take our property for nothing pay for it. We are trying to stop
piracy and I don't think there is any lesser word to describe it. I
-think there are harsher words which would fit it.<a href="#ftn.idp7739440" class="footnote" name="idp7739440"><sup class="footnote">[66]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
40656"></a><p>
+think there are harsher words which would fit it.<a href="#ftn.idp7708288" class="footnote" name="idp7708288"><sup class="footnote">[66]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
09504"></a><p>
These were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free-ride[rs],</span>»</span> Screen Actor's Guild president Charlton
Heston said, who were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depriving actors of
-compensation.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7742384" class="footnote" name="idp7742384"><sup class="footnote">[67]</sup></a>
+compensation.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7711232" class="footnote" name="idp7711232"><sup class="footnote">[67]</sup></a>
</p><p>
But again, there was another side to the debate. As Assistant Attorney
General Edwin Zimmerman put it,
question here is how much compensation they should have and
-how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<a href="#ftn.idp7745440" class="footnote" name="idp7745440"><sup class="footnote">[68]</sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7747632"></a>
+how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<a href="#ftn.idp7714288" class="footnote" name="idp7714288"><sup class="footnote">[68]</sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7716480"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Copyright owners took the cable companies to court. Twice the Supreme
Court held that the cable companies owed the copyright owners nothing.
exercise veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable
companies thus built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> of the value
created by broadcasters' content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
50960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7751936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
19808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7720784"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>These separate stories</strong></span> sing a
common theme. If <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> means using value from someone
else's creative property without permission from that creator—as
-it is increasingly described today<a href="#ftn.idp7746624" class="footnote" name="idp7746624"><sup class="footnote">[69]</sup></a>
+it is increasingly described today<a href="#ftn.idp7715472" class="footnote" name="idp7715472"><sup class="footnote">[69]</sup></a>
— then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry affected by copyright
today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of
piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. … The list is long and
could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
last. Every generation—until now.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7628416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7628416" class="para"><sup class="para">[51] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7596912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7596912" class="para"><sup class="para">[51] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7629056"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7597552"></a>
I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary
history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 87–93,
which details Edison's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">adventures</span>»</span> with copyright and patent.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7636752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7636752" class="para"><sup class="para">[52] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7605248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7605248" class="para"><sup class="para">[52] </sup></a>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent Motion
Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and expanded texts
the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (September 2002), University of
Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics,
Working Paper No. 159.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7639792"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7642208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7642208" class="para"><sup class="para">[53] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7608288"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7610704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7610704" class="para"><sup class="para">[53] </sup></a>
Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents Majority</em>, archived at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7658784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7658784" class="para"><sup class="para">[54] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7627280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7627280" class="para"><sup class="para">[54] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on
S. 6330 and H.R. 19853 Before the (Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th
of South Dakota, chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the
Copyright Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7660192"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7662784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7662784" class="para"><sup class="para">[55] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7628688"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7631280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7631280" class="para"><sup class="para">[55] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223
(statement of Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7664352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7664352" class="para"><sup class="para">[56] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7632848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7632848" class="para"><sup class="para">[56] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226
(statement of Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7665696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7665696" class="para"><sup class="para">[57] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7634192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7634192" class="para"><sup class="para">[57] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23
(statement of John Philip Sousa, composer).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7676000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7676000" class="para"><sup class="para">[58] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7644496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7644496" class="para"><sup class="para">[58] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84
(statement of Albert Walker, representative of the Auto-Music
Perforating Company of New York).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7678384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7678384" class="para"><sup class="para">[59] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7646880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7646880" class="para"><sup class="para">[59] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
Graphophone Company Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7631584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7631584" class="para"><sup class="para">[60] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7600080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7600080" class="para"><sup class="para">[60] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
sess., 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted
in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and
Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7698208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7698208" class="para"><sup class="para">[61] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7667424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7667424" class="para"><sup class="para">[61] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee
on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8
March 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to
-this report.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7708992" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7708992" class="para"><sup class="para">[62] </sup></a>
+this report.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7678208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7678208" class="para"><sup class="para">[62] </sup></a>
See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At the beginning,
record companies printed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast</span>»</span> and other
Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 281.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7712464"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7713216"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7732576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7732576" class="para"><sup class="para">[63] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7681680"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7682432"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7701424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7701424" class="para"><sup class="para">[63] </sup></a>
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).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7729440"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7735296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7735296" class="para"><sup class="para">[64] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7698288"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7704144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7704144" class="para"><sup class="para">[64] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7737008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7737008" class="para"><sup class="para">[65] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7705856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7705856" class="para"><sup class="para">[65] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7739440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7739440" class="para"><sup class="para">[66] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7708288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7708288" class="para"><sup class="para">[66] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.
Krim, president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of
United Artists Television, Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7742384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7742384" class="para"><sup class="para">[67] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7711232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7711232" class="para"><sup class="para">[67] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (statement of Charlton Heston,
president of the Screen Actors Guild).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7743152"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7745440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7745440" class="para"><sup class="para">[68] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7712000"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7714288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7714288" class="para"><sup class="para">[68] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M.
Zimmerman, acting assistant attorney general).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7746752"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7746624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7746624" class="para"><sup class="para">[69] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7715600"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7715472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7715472" class="para"><sup class="para">[69] </sup></a>
See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The Engine
of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free
outright copying, and the law should account for that ambiguity, as it
has so often done in the past.
-</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
63616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
+</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
32464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there
are businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted
content, copy it, and sell it—all without the permission of a copyright
owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
-every year to physical piracy<a href="#ftn.idp7745568" class="footnote" name="idp7745568"><sup class="footnote">[70]</sup></a>
+every year to physical piracy<a href="#ftn.idp7714416" class="footnote" name="idp7714416"><sup class="footnote">[70]</sup></a>
(that works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA
estimates that it loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
</p><p>
If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are
its laws regardless of their source. The international law under which
these nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden
-of intellectual property law.<a href="#ftn.idp7773344" class="footnote" name="idp7773344"><sup class="footnote">[71]</sup></a> In my view, more developing nations should take
+of intellectual property law.<a href="#ftn.idp7742192" class="footnote" name="idp7742192"><sup class="footnote">[71]</sup></a> In my view, more developing nations should take
advantage of that opportunity, but when they don't, then their laws
should be respected. And under the laws of these nations, this piracy
is wrong.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
77264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
46112"></a><p>
Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in
any case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access
to American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have
bought those American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any
-less money than they otherwise would have had.<a href="#ftn.idp7778608" class="footnote" name="idp7778608"><sup class="footnote">[72]</sup></a>
+less money than they otherwise would have had.<a href="#ftn.idp7747456" class="footnote" name="idp7747456"><sup class="footnote">[72]</sup></a>
</p><p>
This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many
thousands of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay
from a computer network, there is not one less CD that can be sold.
The physics of piracy of the intangible are different from the physics of
piracy of the tangible.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
83600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
52448"></a><p>
This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a
property right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a
property right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the
a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> means.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
87312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7788064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7789072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7789824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7790576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7791328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7792336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7793088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7794096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
56160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7756912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7757920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7758672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7759424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7760176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7761184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7761936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7762944"></a><p>
Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on Microsoft. Microsoft
Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating
system, then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying
Microsoft. Without piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
96624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
65472"></a><p>
This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law
students, for example, are given free access to the two largest legal
databases. The companies marketing both hope the students will become
so used to their service that they will want to use it and not the
other when they become lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
98448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7799200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7799952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7800704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp77
67296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7768048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7768800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7769552"></a><p>
Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the
alcoholic a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that
will make it more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we
sharing to survive.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piracy II</h2></div></div></div><p>
The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s]
-the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7809920" class="footnote" name="idp7809920"><sup class="footnote">[73]</sup></a>
+the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7778752" class="footnote" name="idp7778752"><sup class="footnote">[73]</sup></a>
This means we must determine whether
and how much p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the
law should seek to either prevent it or find an alternative to assure the
author of his profit.
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7812320"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7813072"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7781152"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7781904"></a>
<a class="indexterm" name="idxnapster"></a>
Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of
the Napster technology had not made any major technological
innovations. Like every great advance in innovation on the Internet
-(and, arguably, off the Internet as well<a href="#ftn.idp7815312" class="footnote" name="idp7815312"><sup class="footnote">[74]</sup></a>), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply
+(and, arguably, off the Internet as well<a href="#ftn.idp7784144" class="footnote" name="idp7784144"><sup class="footnote">[74]</sup></a>), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply
put together components that had been developed independently.
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7819376"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7820128"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7821136"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7788208"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7788960"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7789968"></a>
The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999,
Napster amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After
eighteen months, there were close to 80 million registered users of the
-system.<a href="#ftn.idp7822368" class="footnote" name="idp7822368"><sup class="footnote">[75]</sup></a>
+system.<a href="#ftn.idp7791200" class="footnote" name="idp7791200"><sup class="footnote">[75]</sup></a>
Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other services emerged
to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p service. It
boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are different
users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend—
or your 20,000 best friends.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
827440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
796272"></a><p>
According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans
have tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in
September 2002 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded
-music—28 percent of Americans older than 12.<a href="#ftn.idp7827808" class="footnote" name="idp7827808"><sup class="footnote">[76]</sup></a>
+music—28 percent of Americans older than 12.<a href="#ftn.idp7796640" class="footnote" name="idp7796640"><sup class="footnote">[76]</sup></a>
A survey by the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>
estimated that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to
-exchange content in May 2003.<a href="#ftn.idp7831024" class="footnote" name="idp7831024"><sup class="footnote">[77]</sup></a>
+exchange content in May 2003.<a href="#ftn.idp7799856" class="footnote" name="idp7799856"><sup class="footnote">[77]</sup></a>
The vast majority of these are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a
massive quantity of content is being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The
ease and inexpensiveness of file-sharing networks have inspired
File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these
different kinds into four types.
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
36160"></a><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
04992"></a><p>
There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying
Let's start with some simple but important points. From the
perspective of the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the
perspective of economics, only type A sharing is clearly
-harmful.<a href="#ftn.idp7843488" class="footnote" name="idp7843488"><sup class="footnote">[78]</sup></a>
+harmful.<a href="#ftn.idp7812320" class="footnote" name="idp7812320"><sup class="footnote">[78]</sup></a>
Type B sharing is illegal but plainly beneficial. Type C sharing is
illegal, yet good for society (since more exposure to music is good)
and harmless to the artist (since the work is not otherwise
practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of
cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst
& Young put it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular
-technology, the labels fought it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7849968" class="footnote" name="idp7849968"><sup class="footnote">[79]</sup></a>
+technology, the labels fought it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7818800" class="footnote" name="idp7818800"><sup class="footnote">[79]</sup></a>
The labels claimed that every album taped was an album unsold, and
when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed
that its point was proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or
regulating technology was the answer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
53888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
22720"></a><p>
Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity
to enact regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the `crisis' … was
not the fault of the tapers—who did not [stop after MTV came into
being]—but had to a large extent resulted from stagnation in musical
-innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7779984" class="footnote" name="idp7779984"><sup class="footnote">[80]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
57456"></a><p>
+innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7748832" class="footnote" name="idp7748832"><sup class="footnote">[80]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
26288"></a><p>
But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is
wrong today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to
the industry in particular, and society in general—or at least
</p><p>
In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent,
from 882 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7
-percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7863792" class="footnote" name="idp7863792"><sup class="footnote">[81]</sup></a>
+percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7832624" class="footnote" name="idp7832624"><sup class="footnote">[81]</sup></a>
This confirms a trend over the past few years. The RIAA blames
Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that
could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more
than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
-price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7868320" class="footnote" name="idp7868320"><sup class="footnote">[82]</sup></a>
+price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7837152" class="footnote" name="idp7837152"><sup class="footnote">[82]</sup></a>
Competition from other forms of media could also account for some of
the decline. As Jane Black of <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
soundtrack to the film <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of
$18.98. You could get the whole movie [on DVD] for
-$19.99.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7872336" class="footnote" name="idp7872336"><sup class="footnote">[83]</sup></a>
+$19.99.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7841168" class="footnote" name="idp7841168"><sup class="footnote">[83]</sup></a>
</p><p>
percent drop. If 2.6 times the number of CDs sold were downloaded for
free, and yet sales revenue dropped by just 6.7 percent, then there is
a huge difference between <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
76752"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
45584"></a><p>
These are the harms—alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's
assume, real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on
the recording industry. What value does it produce in addition to
is technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially
available. This is not a small category of content. There are
millions of tracks that are no longer commercially
-available.<a href="#ftn.idp7877872" class="footnote" name="idp7877872"><sup class="footnote">[84]</sup></a>
+available.<a href="#ftn.idp7846704" class="footnote" name="idp7846704"><sup class="footnote">[84]</sup></a>
And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic
sense <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
81360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
50192"></a><p>
In real space—long before the Internet—the market had a simple
response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are
thousands of used book and used record stores in America
-today.<a href="#ftn.idp7883104" class="footnote" name="idp7883104"><sup class="footnote">[85]</sup></a>
+today.<a href="#ftn.idp7851936" class="footnote" name="idp7851936"><sup class="footnote">[85]</sup></a>
These stores buy content from owners, then sell the content they
buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell this
content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
money from the content they sell; but as with cable companies before
statutory licensing, they don't have to pay the copyright owner for
the content they sell.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
88288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7889296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
57120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7858128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson"></a><p>
Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used
record stores. It is different, of course, because the person making
the content available isn't making money from making the content
stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be
shut as well?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
95312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7896064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
64144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7864896"></a><p>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable
type D sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners
want to have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This
type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread, then
both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
great book!)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
99152"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp78
67984"></a><p>
Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society
with no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem
of type A sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
unavailable?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
902080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
870912"></a><p>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this
chapter, much of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly
legal and good. And like the piracy I described in chapter
infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4
percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to zero.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7907488" class="footnote" name="idp7907488"><sup class="footnote">[86]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to zero.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7876320" class="footnote" name="idp7876320"><sup class="footnote">[86]</sup></a>
</p><p>
If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to
technology. In this adjustment, the law sought to ensure the
legitimate rights of creators while protecting innovation. Sometimes
this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes less.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
911632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7912640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7919344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7920352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7921360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7922368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7923376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7924128"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
880464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7881472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7888176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7889184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7890192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7891200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7892208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7892960"></a><p>
So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened the
interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
compensation, but at a level set by the law. It likewise gave cable
companies the right to the content, so long as they paid the statutory
price.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
928608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
897440"></a><p>
This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player
Congress chose a path that would assure
<span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past
(broadcasters) control over the future (cable).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
31600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7932464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7933440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbetamax"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
00432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7901296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7902272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbetamax"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><p>
In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major
producers and distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against
another technology, the video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to
and shows. Sony was therefore benefiting from the copyright
infringement of its customers. It should therefore, Disney and
Universal claimed, be partially liable for that infringement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
38672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
07504"></a><p>
There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did
decide to design its machine to make it very simple to record television
shows. It could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct
system to minimize the opportunity for copyright infringement. It did
not, and for that, Disney and Universal wanted to hold it responsible
for the architecture it chose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
42992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
11824"></a><p>
MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal
champion. Valenti called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are
20, 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by
millions of `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of
the most precious asset the copyright owner has, his
-copyright.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7945248" class="footnote" name="idp7945248"><sup class="footnote">[87]</sup></a>
+copyright.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7914080" class="footnote" name="idp7914080"><sup class="footnote">[87]</sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and
creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation
on the after-theater marketplace caused by the hundreds of millions of
tapings that will adversely impact on the future of the creative
community in this country. It is simply a question of basic economics
-and plain common sense.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7947280" class="footnote" name="idp7947280"><sup class="footnote">[88]</sup></a>
+and plain common sense.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7916112" class="footnote" name="idp7916112"><sup class="footnote">[88]</sup></a>
Indeed, as surveys would later show, 45
-percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or more<a href="#ftn.idp7948256" class="footnote" name="idp7948256"><sup class="footnote">[89]</sup></a>
+percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or more<a href="#ftn.idp7917088" class="footnote" name="idp7917088"><sup class="footnote">[89]</sup></a>
— a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
copyright infringement without creating a mechanism to compensate
copyright owners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from the
owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby
-profit from its reproduction.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7951184" class="footnote" name="idp7951184"><sup class="footnote">[90]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
52176"></a><p>
+profit from its reproduction.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7920016" class="footnote" name="idp7920016"><sup class="footnote">[90]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
21008"></a><p>
It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme
Court. In the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
includes Hollywood in its jurisdiction—leading Judge Alex
called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse
yet, it was a <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the
American film industry)—was an illegal
-technology.<a href="#ftn.idp7954288" class="footnote" name="idp7954288"><sup class="footnote">[91]</sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7956768"></a>
+technology.<a href="#ftn.idp7923120" class="footnote" name="idp7923120"><sup class="footnote">[91]</sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7925600"></a>
</p><p>
But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.
and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the
varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably
implicated
-by such new technology.<a href="#ftn.idp7959440" class="footnote" name="idp7959440"><sup class="footnote">[92]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
61232"></a><p>
+by such new technology.<a href="#ftn.idp7928272" class="footnote" name="idp7928272"><sup class="footnote">[92]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
30064"></a><p>
Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision. But as
with the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress
ignored the request. Congress was convinced that American film got
enough, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding. If we put these cases
together, a pattern is clear:
-</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">CASE</th><th align="left">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>»</span></th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Recordings</td><td align="left">Composers</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Recording artists</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cable TV</td><td align="left">Broadcasters</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VCR</td><td align="left">Film creators</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
75408"></a><p>
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">CASE</th><th align="left">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>»</span></th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Recordings</td><td align="left">Composers</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Recording artists</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cable TV</td><td align="left">Broadcasters</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VCR</td><td align="left">Film creators</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
44240"></a><p>
In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the
-way content was distributed.<a href="#ftn.idp7976752" class="footnote" name="idp7976752"><sup class="footnote">[93]</sup></a>
+way content was distributed.<a href="#ftn.idp7945584" class="footnote" name="idp7945584"><sup class="footnote">[93]</sup></a>
In each case, throughout our history,
that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free ride</span>»</span> on someone else's
work.
technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the
interests at stake.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
84688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
53520"></a><p>
When you think across these examples, and the other examples that
make up the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes
sense. Was Walt Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators
to $15 million in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had
controlled film? Should every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get
permission to record a song?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
86432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp79
55264"></a><p>
We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition
has answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated,
copyright <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control
-over all possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7988224" class="footnote" name="idp7988224"><sup class="footnote">[94]</sup></a>
+over all possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7957056" class="footnote" name="idp7957056"><sup class="footnote">[94]</sup></a>
Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined
by balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right
against the burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this
network. Left to develop, they could make the network vastly more
efficient. Yet these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz
writes in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the P2P
-fight.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7994064" class="footnote" name="idp7994064"><sup class="footnote">[95]</sup></a>
+fight.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7962896" class="footnote" name="idp7962896"><sup class="footnote">[95]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk
about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>,</span>»</span> the warriors
insist. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">And it should be protected just as any other property
is protected.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7745568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7745568" class="para"><sup class="para">[70] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7714416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7714416" class="para"><sup class="para">[70] </sup></a>
See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), <em class="citetitle">The
Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>, July 2003, available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #14</a>. See
also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial
Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7773344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7773344" class="para"><sup class="para">[71] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7742192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7742192" class="para"><sup class="para">[71] </sup></a>
See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
<em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The
be able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the
TRIPS framework.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7676720"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7776048"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7778608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7778608" class="para"><sup class="para">[72] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7645216"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7744896"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7747456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7747456" class="para"><sup class="para">[72] </sup></a>
For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York: Amacom, 2002),
be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the individual
engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7780416"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7809920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7809920" class="para"><sup class="para">[73] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7749264"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7778752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7778752" class="para"><sup class="para">[73] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7815312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7815312" class="para"><sup class="para">[74] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7784144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7784144" class="para"><sup class="para">[74] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7815952"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7784784"></a>
See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary
National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York:
HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies
reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89–92, 139.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7779728"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7822368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7822368" class="para"><sup class="para">[75] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7748576"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7791200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7791200" class="para"><sup class="para">[75] </sup></a>
See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span>
Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1;
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John Naughton,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London) <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7827808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7827808" class="para"><sup class="para">[76] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7796640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7796640" class="para"><sup class="para">[76] </sup></a>
See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music Distribution</em>
(September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of Americans aged twelve
and older have downloaded music off of the Internet and 30 percent have
listened to digital music files stored on their computers.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7831024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7831024" class="para"><sup class="para">[77] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7799856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7799856" class="para"><sup class="para">[77] </sup></a>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7843488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7843488" class="para"><sup class="para">[78] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7812320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7812320" class="para"><sup class="para">[78] </sup></a>
See Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>, 148–49.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7818000"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7849968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7849968" class="para"><sup class="para">[79] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7786832"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7818800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7818800" class="para"><sup class="para">[79] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7850608"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7819440"></a>
See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding
music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law</em>,
OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
-October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp7779984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7779984" class="para"><sup class="para">[80] </sup></a>
+October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp7748832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7748832" class="para"><sup class="para">[80] </sup></a>
U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7863792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7863792" class="para"><sup class="para">[81] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7832624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7832624" class="para"><sup class="para">[81] </sup></a>
See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend Statistics</em>,
available at
industry worldwide has gone from a $39 billion industry in 2000 down
to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based on U.S. dollar value of
shipments).</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7868320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7868320" class="para"><sup class="para">[82] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7837152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7837152" class="para"><sup class="para">[82] </sup></a>
Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>»</span> BusinessWeek online, 13
February 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7870096"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7872336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7872336" class="para"><sup class="para">[83] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7838928"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7841168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7841168" class="para"><sup class="para">[83] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7877872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7877872" class="para"><sup class="para">[84] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7846704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7846704" class="para"><sup class="para">[84] </sup></a>
By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels
is no longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April
2001) (prepared statement of the Future of Music Coalition), available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7883104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7883104" class="para"><sup class="para">[85] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7851936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7851936" class="para"><sup class="para">[85] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7883744"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7852576"></a>
While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores
in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the
United States, an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter
Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
Results,</span>»</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7907488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7907488" class="para"><sup class="para">[86] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7876320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7876320" class="para"><sup class="para">[86] </sup></a>
See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34-
35 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183
account of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn,
<em class="citetitle">All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
York: Crown Business, 2003), 269–82.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7945248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7945248" class="para"><sup class="para">[87] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7914080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7914080" class="para"><sup class="para">[87] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on
S. 1758 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st
and 2nd sess., 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion
Picture Association of America, Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7947280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7947280" class="para"><sup class="para">[88] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7916112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7916112" class="para"><sup class="para">[88] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7948256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7948256" class="para"><sup class="para">[89] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7917088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7917088" class="para"><sup class="para">[89] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429,
(C.D. Cal., 1979).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7951184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7951184" class="para"><sup class="para">[90] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7920016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7920016" class="para"><sup class="para">[90] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony
of Jack Valenti).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7954288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7954288" class="para"><sup class="para">[91] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7923120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7923120" class="para"><sup class="para">[91] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.
1981).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7959440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7959440" class="para"><sup class="para">[92] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7928272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7928272" class="para"><sup class="para">[92] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7976752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7976752" class="para"><sup class="para">[93] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7945584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7945584" class="para"><sup class="para">[93] </sup></a>
These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example,
eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7909488"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7980464"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7988224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7988224" class="para"><sup class="para">[94] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7878320"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7949296"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7957056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7957056" class="para"><sup class="para">[94] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417,
(1984).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7994064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7994064" class="para"><sup class="para">[95] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7962896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7962896" class="para"><sup class="para">[95] </sup></a>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 September 2003, C3.
table in the backyard—by, for example, going to Sears, buying a
table, and putting it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking
then?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8005840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7974672"></a><p>
The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus
ideas, though that's an important difference. The point instead is that
woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true
when I copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
-lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8008112" class="footnote" name="idp8008112"><sup class="footnote">[96]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8009568"></a><p>
+lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7976944" class="footnote" name="idp7976944"><sup class="footnote">[96]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7978400"></a><p>
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
I won't discuss here. Here the law says you can't take my idea or
But how, and to what extent, and in what form—the details,
in other words—matter. To get a good sense of how this practice
of turning the intangible into property emerged, we need to place this
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in its proper context.<a href="#ftn.idp8012112" class="footnote" name="idp8012112"><sup class="footnote">[97]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in its proper context.<a href="#ftn.idp7980944" class="footnote" name="idp7980944"><sup class="footnote">[97]</sup></a>
</p><p>
My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the
preceding part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of
statement—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright material is property</span>»</span>— will be a bit
more clear, and its implications will be revealed as quite different
from the implications that the copyright warriors would have us draw.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8008112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8008112" class="para"><sup class="para">[96] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7976944" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7976944" class="para"><sup class="para">[96] </sup></a>
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (13 August 1813) in
<em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert
Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333–34.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8012112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8012112" class="para"><sup class="para">[97] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7980944" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7980944" class="para"><sup class="para">[97] </sup></a>
As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
intangible. A property right is simply a right that an individual has
the object to which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See
Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. Chapter Six: Founders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8024496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8025248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8026000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. Chapter Six: Founders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7993328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7994080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7994832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> wrote
<em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> in 1595. The play was first
published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play that Shakespeare had
once overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of
Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of
clichés.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8030336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7999168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
In 1774, almost 180 years after <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> was written, the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy-right</span>»</span> for the work was still thought by many to be the exclusive
-right of a single London publisher, Jacob Tonson.<a href="#ftn.idp8033472" class="footnote" name="idp8033472"><sup class="footnote">[98]</sup></a>
+right of a single London publisher, Jacob Tonson.<a href="#ftn.idp8002304" class="footnote" name="idp8002304"><sup class="footnote">[98]</sup></a>
Tonson was the most prominent of a small group of publishers called
-the Conger<a href="#ftn.idp8037776" class="footnote" name="idp8037776"><sup class="footnote">[99]</sup></a>
+the Conger<a href="#ftn.idp8006608" class="footnote" name="idp8006608"><sup class="footnote">[99]</sup></a>
who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth
century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span> of
books that they had acquired from authors. That perpetual right meant
one else could publish copies of a book to which they held the
copyright. Prices of the classics were thus kept high; competition to
produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
40224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8042464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8043472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
09056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8011296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8012304"></a><p>
Now, there's something puzzling about the year 1774 to anyone who
knows a little about copyright law. The better-known year in the
history of copyright is 1710, the year that the British Parliament
act stated that all published works would get a copyright term of
fourteen years, renewable once if the author was alive, and that all
works already published by 1710 would get a single term of twenty-one
-additional years.<a href="#ftn.idp8045376" class="footnote" name="idp8045376"><sup class="footnote">[100]</sup></a> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> should have been
+additional years.<a href="#ftn.idp8014208" class="footnote" name="idp8014208"><sup class="footnote">[100]</sup></a> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> should have been
free in 1731. So why was there any issue about it still being under
Tonson's control in 1774?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
48384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8049360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8051824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8052576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
17216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8018192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8020656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8021408"></a><p>
The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>
was—indeed, no one had. At the time the English passed the
Statute of Anne, there was no other legislation governing copyrights.
published. But after it expired, there was no positive law that said
that the publishers, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stationers,</span>»</span> had an exclusive right to print
books.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
55008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8055984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
23840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8024816"></a><p>
There was no <span class="emphasis"><em>positive</em></span> law, but that didn't mean
that there was no law. The Anglo-American legal tradition looks to
both the words of legislatures and the words of judges to know the
background only if it passes a law to displace it. And so the real
question after the licensing statutes had expired was whether the
common law protected a copyright, independent of any positive law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
58880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8059856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8061840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
27712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8028688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8030672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
This question was important to the publishers, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">booksellers,</span>»</span> as
they were called, because there was growing competition from foreign
publishers. The Scottish, in particular, were increasingly publishing
copyright <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">expired,</span>»</span> and the work would then be free and could be
published by anyone. Or so the legislature is thought to have
believed.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
68272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
37104"></a><p>
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
<span class="emphasis"><em>at all?</em></span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
70224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8071200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8071952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
39056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8040032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8040784"></a><p>
For the booksellers, and the authors whom they represented, had a very
strong claim. Take <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> as an example: That play
was written by Shakespeare. It was his genius that brought it into the
why is it that the law would ever allow someone else to come along and
take Shakespeare's play without his, or his estate's, permission? What
reason is there to allow someone else to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Shakespeare's work?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
74960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
43792"></a><p>
The answer comes in two parts. We first need to see something special
about the notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> that existed at the time of the
Statute of Anne. Second, we have to see something important about
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">booksellers.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
77088"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
45920"></a><p>
First, about copyright. In the last three hundred years, we have come
to apply the concept of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> ever more broadly. But in 1710, it
wasn't so much a concept as it was a very particular right. The
large collection of restrictions on the freedom of others: It grants
the author the exclusive right to copy, the exclusive right to
distribute, the exclusive right to perform, and so on.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
80640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8081392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
49472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8050224"></a><p>
So, for example, even if the copyright to Shakespeare's works were
perpetual, all that would have meant under the original meaning of the
term was that no one could reprint Shakespeare's work without the
the work could be translated, or whether Kenneth Branagh would be
allowed to make his films. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy-right</span>»</span> was only an exclusive
right to print—no less, of course, but also no more.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
83456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8085440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
52288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8054272"></a><p>
Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British.
They had had a long and ugly experience with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive rights,</span>»</span>
especially <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive rights</span>»</span> granted by the Crown. The English had
have it forever.</span>»</span>) The state would protect the exclusive right, but
only so long as it benefited society. The British saw the harms from
specialinterest favors; they passed a law to stop them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
89888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8091872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
58720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8060704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></a><p>
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.
Booksellers sound quaint and harmless to us. They were not viewed
these monopolists were harsh: Milton described them as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">old patentees
and monopolizers in the trade of book-selling</span>»</span>; they were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">men who do
not therefore labour in an honest profession to which learning is
-indetted.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8095984" class="footnote" name="idp8095984"><sup class="footnote">[101]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
97264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8098016"></a><p>
+indetted.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8064816" class="footnote" name="idp8064816"><sup class="footnote">[101]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp80
66096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8066848"></a><p>
Many believed the power the booksellers exercised over the spread of
knowledge was harming that spread, just at the time the Enlightenment
was teaching the importance of education and knowledge spread
Eye of the Law; it will be a great Cramp to Trade, a Discouragement to
Learning, no Benefit to the Authors, but a general Tax on the Publick;
and all this only to increase the private Gain of the
-Booksellers.<a href="#ftn.idp8107072" class="footnote" name="idp8107072"><sup class="footnote">[102]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
109296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8110272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8111248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8112000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8113008"></a><p>
+Booksellers.<a href="#ftn.idp8075904" class="footnote" name="idp8075904"><sup class="footnote">[102]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
078128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8079104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8080080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8080832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8081840"></a><p>
Having failed in Parliament, the publishers turned to the courts in a
series of cases. Their argument was simple and direct: The Statute of
Anne gave authors certain protections through positive law, but those
they had the right to ban the publication of a book, even if its
Statute of Anne copyright had expired. This, they argued, was the only
way to protect authors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
115392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
084224"></a><p>
This was a clever argument, and one that had the support of some of
the leading jurists of the day. It also displayed extraordinary
chutzpah. Until then, as law professor Raymond Patterson has put it,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The publishers … had as much concern for authors as a cattle
-rancher has for cattle.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7855696" class="footnote" name="idp7855696"><sup class="footnote">[103]</sup></a>
+rancher has for cattle.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7824528" class="footnote" name="idp7824528"><sup class="footnote">[103]</sup></a>
The bookseller didn't care squat for the rights of the author. His
concern was the monopoly profit that the author's work gave.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
121840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
090672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
The booksellers' argument was not accepted without a fight.
The hero of this fight was a Scottish bookseller named Alexander
-Donaldson.<a href="#ftn.idp8124240" class="footnote" name="idp8124240"><sup class="footnote">[104]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
127984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8128736"></a><p>
+Donaldson.<a href="#ftn.idp8093072" class="footnote" name="idp8093072"><sup class="footnote">[104]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
096816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8097568"></a><p>
Donaldson was an outsider to the London Conger. He began his
career in Edinburgh in 1750. The focus of his business was inexpensive
reprints <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">of standard works whose copyright term had expired,</span>»</span> at least
-under the Statute of Anne.<a href="#ftn.idp8130288" class="footnote" name="idp8130288"><sup class="footnote">[105]</sup></a>
+under the Statute of Anne.<a href="#ftn.idp8099120" class="footnote" name="idp8099120"><sup class="footnote">[105]</sup></a>
Donaldson's publishing house prospered
and became <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something of a center for literary Scotsmen.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">[A]mong
them,</span>»</span> Professor Mark Rose writes, was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the young James Boswell
who, together with his friend Andrew Erskine, published an anthology
-of contemporary Scottish poems with Donaldson.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8133632" class="footnote" name="idp8133632"><sup class="footnote">[106]</sup></a>
+of contemporary Scottish poems with Donaldson.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8102464" class="footnote" name="idp8102464"><sup class="footnote">[106]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw"></a><p>
When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in
Scotland, he responded by moving his shop to London, where he sold
inexpensive editions <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">of the most popular English books, in defiance
of the supposed common law right of Literary
-Property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8136560" class="footnote" name="idp8136560"><sup class="footnote">[107]</sup></a>
+Property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8105392" class="footnote" name="idp8105392"><sup class="footnote">[107]</sup></a>
His books undercut the Conger prices by 30 to 50 percent, and he
rested his right to compete upon the ground that, under the Statute of
Anne, the works he was selling had passed out of protection.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
38800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
07632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> like
Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates,</span>»</span>
the most important early victory being <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
43008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8143984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8147680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8148432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
11840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8112816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8116512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8117264"></a><p>
Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James
Thomson's poem <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons.</span>»</span> Millar complied with the requirements of
the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full protection of the
statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor began
printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
-law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<a href="#ftn.idp8150224" class="footnote" name="idp8150224"><sup class="footnote">[108]</sup></a>
+law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<a href="#ftn.idp8119056" class="footnote" name="idp8119056"><sup class="footnote">[108]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord2"></a><p>
Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever
reprinting Thomson's poem without Millar's permission. That common law
rule thus effectively gave the booksellers a perpetual right to
control the publication of any book assigned to them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
54608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8155584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8156560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
23440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8124416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8125392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
Considered as a matter of abstract justice—reasoning as if
justice were just a matter of logical deduction from first
principles—Mansfield's conclusion might make some sense. But
a reasonable period of time. Within twenty-one years, Parliament
believed, Britain would mature from the controlled culture that the
Crown coveted to the free culture that we inherited.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
60528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
28960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></a><p>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
64496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8165248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
32928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8133680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></a><p>
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
-Thomas Beckett.<a href="#ftn.idp8169152" class="footnote" name="idp8169152"><sup class="footnote">[109]</sup></a>
+Thomas Beckett.<a href="#ftn.idp8137584" class="footnote" name="idp8137584"><sup class="footnote">[109]</sup></a>
Donaldson then released an unauthorized edition
of Thomson's works. Beckett, on the strength of the decision in <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>,
got an injunction against Donaldson. Donaldson appealed the case to
the House of Lords, which functioned much like our own Supreme
Court. In February of 1774, that body had the chance to interpret the
meaning of Parliament's limits from sixty years before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
70832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8171808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
39264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8140240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
As few legal cases ever do, <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> drew an
enormous amount of attention throughout Britain. Donaldson's lawyers
argued that whatever rights may have existed under the common law, the
publication came from that statute. Thus, they argued, after the term
specified in the Statute of Anne expired, works that had been
protected by the statute were no longer protected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
76880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
45312"></a><p>
The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were
presented to the House and voted upon first by the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law lords,</span>»</span>
members of special legal distinction who functioned much like the
Justices in our Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the
House of Lords generally voted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
78928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
47360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
The reports about the law lords' votes are mixed. On some counts,
it looks as if perpetual copyright prevailed. But there is no ambiguity
Whatever one's understanding of the common law, now a copyright was
fixed for a limited time, after which the work protected by copyright
passed into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
84000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8184752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8185504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8186256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8187008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
52432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8153184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8153936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8154688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8155440"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The public domain.</span>»</span> Before the case of <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em>, there was no clear idea of a public domain in
England. Before 1774, there was a strong argument that common law
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
89168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8190800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8191776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8192752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8193728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8194704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
57600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8159232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8160208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8161184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8162160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8163136"></a><p>
It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords
fueled an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland,
where most of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirate publishers</span>»</span> did their work, people
public, and none has been tried before the House of Lords in the
decision of which so many individuals were interested.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great
rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over literary property: bonfires
-and illuminations.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8197600" class="footnote" name="idp8197600"><sup class="footnote">[110]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
98496"></a><p>
+and illuminations.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8166032" class="footnote" name="idp8166032"><sup class="footnote">[110]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp81
66928"></a><p>
In London, however, at least among publishers, the reaction was
equally strong in the opposite direction. The <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em>
reported:
Copy-right, are in a manner ruined, and those who after many years
industry thought they had acquired a competency to provide for their
families now find themselves without a shilling to devise to their
-successors.<a href="#ftn.idp8117104" class="footnote" name="idp8117104"><sup class="footnote">[111]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
202400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8203152"></a><p>
+successors.<a href="#ftn.idp8085936" class="footnote" name="idp8085936"><sup class="footnote">[111]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
170832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8171584"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruined</span>»</span> is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to
say that the change was profound. The decision of the House of Lords
context</em></span>, not a context in which the choices about what
culture is available to people and how they get access to it are made
by the few despite the wishes of the many.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
207632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8208608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
176064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8177040"></a><p>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8209984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8210960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8211936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8212912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8213888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8214864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8215840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8216816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8217792"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8033472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8033472" class="para"><sup class="para">[98] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8178416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8179392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8180368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8181344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8182320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8183296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8184272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8185248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8186224"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8002304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8002304" class="para"><sup class="para">[98] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8034112"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8034864"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8002944"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8003696"></a>
Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent
eighteenth-century literary figures, especially John Dryden, and for his
handsome <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">definitive editions</span>»</span> of classic works. In addition to <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
heart of the English canon, including collected works of Shakespeare, Ben
Jonson, John Milton, and John Dryden. See Keith Walker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
Bookseller,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424–31.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8037776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8037776" class="para"><sup class="para">[99] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8006608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8006608" class="para"><sup class="para">[99] </sup></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em> (Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), 151–52.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8045376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8045376" class="para"><sup class="para">[100] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8014208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8014208" class="para"><sup class="para">[100] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8046016"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8014848"></a>
As Siva Vaidhyanathan nicely argues, it is erroneous to call this a
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright law.</span>»</span> See Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 40.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8095984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8095984" class="para"><sup class="para">[101] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8064816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8064816" class="para"><sup class="para">[101] </sup></a>
Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8107072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8107072" class="para"><sup class="para">[102] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8075904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8075904" class="para"><sup class="para">[102] </sup></a>
A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending
in the House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the
the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein
mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et
al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7855696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7855696" class="para"><sup class="para">[103] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7824528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7824528" class="para"><sup class="para">[103] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8117840"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8118592"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8086672"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8087424"></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt
Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For a wonderfully compelling account, see
Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8124240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8124240" class="para"><sup class="para">[104] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8093072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8093072" class="para"><sup class="para">[104] </sup></a>
For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and Copyright</em>
(London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8130288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8130288" class="para"><sup class="para">[105] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8099120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8099120" class="para"><sup class="para">[105] </sup></a>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1993), 92.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8131312"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8133632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8133632" class="para"><sup class="para">[106] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8100144"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8102464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8102464" class="para"><sup class="para">[106] </sup></a>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8136560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8136560" class="para"><sup class="para">[107] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8105392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8105392" class="para"><sup class="para">[107] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8137200"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8106032"></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting
Borwell).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8150224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8150224" class="para"><sup class="para">[108] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8119056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8119056" class="para"><sup class="para">[108] </sup></a>
Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law Review</em> 29
(1983): 1152.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8169152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8169152" class="para"><sup class="para">[109] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8137584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8137584" class="para"><sup class="para">[109] </sup></a>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8197600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8197600" class="para"><sup class="para">[110] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8166032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8166032" class="para"><sup class="para">[110] </sup></a>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8117104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8117104" class="para"><sup class="para">[111] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8085936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8085936" class="para"><sup class="para">[111] </sup></a>
Ibid.
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Chapter 7. Chapter Seven: Recorders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdocumentaryfilm"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxelsejon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuseindocumentaryfilm"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsfairuseofcopyrightedmaterialin"></a><p>
Else worked on a documentary that I was involved in. At a break,
he told me a story about the freedom to create with film in America
today.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
230304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
198736"></a><p>
In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner's Ring
Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera.
Stagehands are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera.
it, this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special
about the scene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
34416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8235392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
02848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8203824"></a><p>
Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>.
For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and of course, to use
Else called Fox and told them about the clip in the corner of the one
room shot of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission,
Else said. He was just confirming the permission with Fox.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
43392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
11824"></a><p>
Then, as Else told me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two things happened. First we discovered
… that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at
least that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation.</span>»</span>
And second, Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us
to use this four-point-five seconds of … entirely unsolicited
<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which was in the corner of the shot.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
46336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8247200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxherrerarebecca"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
14768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8215632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxherrerarebecca"></a><p>
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
explained to her, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There must be some mistake here. … We're
asking for your educational rate on this.</span>»</span> That was the educational
rate, Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to
confirm what he had been told.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
50592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
19024"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,</span>»</span> he told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Yes, you
have your facts straight,</span>»</span> she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
clip of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> in the corner of a shot in a documentary film
if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys.</span>»</span> As an assistant
to Herrera told Else later on, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">They don't give a shit. They just want
the money.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
54064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8255040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8255792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
22496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8223472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8224224"></a><p>
Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was playing
on the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera. To reproduce
this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the
by the law.
</p><p>
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first
-thought is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8265104" class="footnote" name="idp8265104"><sup class="footnote">[112]</sup></a>
+thought is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8233248" class="footnote" name="idp8233248"><sup class="footnote">[112]</sup></a>
Else's use of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>
episode is clearly a fair use of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>—and fair use does
not require the permission of anyone.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
68432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8269408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
36576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8237552"></a><p>
So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> Here's his reply:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst"></a><p>
broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">clearly
fair use</span>»</span> in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't rely on the
concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
75920"></a><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
44064"></a><p>
Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy
Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> listing the source and licensing status of each
shot in the film. They take a dim view of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> and a claim of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> can grind the application process to a halt.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
80208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8280960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8281712"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
48352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8249104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8249856"></a><p>
I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the first
place. But I knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a history of
would boil down to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper
pockets, me or them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
86816"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
54960"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
The question of fair use usually comes up at the end of the
project, when we are up against a release deadline and out of
money.
-</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
89088"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
57232"></a><p>
In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory therefore
supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture. But
in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of
publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has
matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or
not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8291552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8292528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8293504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8294480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8295456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8296432"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8265104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8265104" class="para"><sup class="para">[112] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8259728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8261056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8262256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8263568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8264896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8266176"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8233248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8233248" class="para"><sup class="para">[112] </sup></a>
For an excellent argument that such use is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> but that
lawyers don't permit recognition that it is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> see Richard
A. Posner with William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em></span>»</span> (draft on file with author), University of Chicago
Law School, 5 August 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. Chapter Eight: Transformers</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
98912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8300896"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. Chapter Eight: Transformers</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp82
69280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8271632"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1993</strong></span>, Alex Alben was a lawyer
working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an innovative company founded
by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop digital
Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything
else that we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go
-for it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8311904" class="footnote" name="idp8311904"><sup class="footnote">[113]</sup></a>
+for it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8283872" class="footnote" name="idp8283872"><sup class="footnote">[113]</sup></a>
</p><p>
The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what
clearing those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films
glass—is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And then we just,
we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we just
started calling people.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
319104"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
291584"></a><p>
Some actors were glad to help—Donald Sutherland, for example,
followed up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.
Others were dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask,
And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood
loved it, and it sold very well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
326768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
299648"></a><p>
But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to
take a year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done
this efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done
-at all.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8328336" class="footnote" name="idp8328336"><sup class="footnote">[114]</sup></a>
+at all.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8301248" class="footnote" name="idp8301248"><sup class="footnote">[114]</sup></a>
Did it make sense, I asked Alben, that this is the way a new work
has to be made?
</p><p>
that the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a
year, how long would it take someone else? And how much creativity is
never made just because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
37232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8338096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
10416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8311584"></a><p>
These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a
Republican hat for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government
defines the scope of these rights, and the scope defined determines
change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a well-trained,
regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and ask,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
41072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
14880"></a><p>
I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only
a few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I
twentieth century, all framed around the idea of a <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode.
The execution was perfect, down to the sixty-minute stopwatch. The
judges loved every minute of it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
44144"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
18288"></a><p>
When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David
Nimmer, perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the
nation. He had an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the
began his talk with a question: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you know how many federal laws
were just violated in this room?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8346320"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8347072"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8347824"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8348832"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8349584"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8320528"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8321344"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8322160"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8323264"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8324096"></a>
For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this
film hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the
rights to these clips; technically, what they had done violated the
and paste architecture of the Internet created—in a second you can
find just about any image you want; in another second, you can have it
planted in your presentation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
51952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
26592"></a><p>
But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and
its archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound
so you don't have to rely upon fair use rights. Either way, the creative
process is a process of paying lawyers—again a privilege, or perhaps a
curse, reserved for the few.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8311904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8311904" class="para"><sup class="para">[113] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8283872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8283872" class="para"><sup class="para">[113] </sup></a>
Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
publicity—rights an artist has to control the commercial
exploitation of his image. But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
Burn</span>»</span> creativity, as this chapter evinces.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8313360"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8314368"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8328336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8328336" class="para"><sup class="para">[114] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8285472"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8286592"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8301248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8301248" class="para"><sup class="para">[114] </sup></a>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management, <em class="citetitle">Seven
Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition</em>, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. Chapter Nine: Collectors</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
69360"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. Chapter Nine: Collectors</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
45328"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In April 1996</strong></span>, millions of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>—computer codes designed to
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
finished the whole of the Internet, they started again. Over and over
again, once every two months, these bits of code took copies of the
Internet and stored them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
72304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
48640"></a><p>
By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of
copies. And at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the
archive that these copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to
the same as the content you read before. The page may seem the same,
but the content could easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's
library—constantly updated, without any reliable memory.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
77616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8379120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
54368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8356112"></a><p>
Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and
the Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet
was. You have the power to see what you remember. More importantly,
perhaps, you also have the power to find what you don't remember and
-what others might prefer you forget.<a href="#ftn.idp8380448" class="footnote" name="idp8380448"><sup class="footnote">[115]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
83792"></a><p>
+what others might prefer you forget.<a href="#ftn.idp8357504" class="footnote" name="idp8357504"><sup class="footnote">[115]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
61248"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can
go back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If
you wanted to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the
Internet Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew
Carnegie of the Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10
billion pages, and it was growing at about a billion pages a month.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
89952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8390704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8391456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8392272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8393088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
67232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8367984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8368768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8369584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8370400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in
human history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty
terabytes of material</span>»</span>—and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the
[television] is almost unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were
Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are
just a graduate student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
99008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8399792"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp83
76304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8377120"></a><p>
Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown?
Remember that back and forth surreal experience of a politician
interacting with a fictional television character? If you were a
<em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out after it … it would be almost
impossible. … Those materials are almost unfindable. …
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
402368"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
379696"></a><p>
Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded
in newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is
recorded on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world
of knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around
once the copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the
work.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
404992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8405808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
382320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8383136"></a><p>
These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library
of Congress made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so
long as such deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to
1915 alone, there were more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed
back.</span>»</span> 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.<a href="#ftn.idp8408032" class="footnote" name="idp8408032"><sup class="footnote">[116]</sup></a>
+all—in the library archive of the film company.<a href="#ftn.idp8385360" class="footnote" name="idp8385360"><sup class="footnote">[116]</sup></a>
</p><p>
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts
were originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the
broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't
demand them. The content of this part of American culture is
practically invisible to anyone who would look.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
412528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
389856"></a><p>
Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and
his allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty
their coverage during the week of September 11 available free on-line.
Anyone could see how news reports from around the world covered the
events of that day.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
414496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8415280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8416384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8417584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8418688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8419504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8420320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8421136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
391824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8392608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8393712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8394912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8396016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8396832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8397648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8398464"></a><p>
Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span> (meaning
films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never copyrighted),
build an archive of knowledge about our history. In this second life,
the content can continue to inform even if that information is no
longer sold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
28208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
05536"></a><p>
The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print
-very quickly (the average today is after about a year<a href="#ftn.idp8429680" class="footnote" name="idp8429680"><sup class="footnote">[117]</sup></a>). After
+very quickly (the average today is after about a year<a href="#ftn.idp8407008" class="footnote" name="idp8407008"><sup class="footnote">[117]</sup></a>). After
it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores without the
copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where many
get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries
before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but
we are for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As
Kahle describes,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
38896"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
16224"></a><p>
It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of
movies, … and about one to two million movies [distributed] during
… thrilling. It could be one of the things humankind would be most
proud of. Up there with the Library of Alexandria, putting a man on
the moon, and the invention of the printing press.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
41296"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
18624"></a><p>
Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the
the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is collected in these digital spaces is also
someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> And the law of property restricts the freedoms
that Kahle and others would exercise.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8446816"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8380448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8380448" class="para"><sup class="para">[115] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8424128"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8357504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8357504" class="para"><sup class="para">[115] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8381088"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8381840"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8358240"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8359024"></a>
The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White
House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> That was
later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq
Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8408032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8408032" class="para"><sup class="para">[116] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8385360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8385360" class="para"><sup class="para">[116] </sup></a>
Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2–3
(1980): 5; Anthony Slide, <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film
Preservation in the United States</em> (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &
Co., 1992), 36.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8429680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8429680" class="para"><sup class="para">[117] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8407008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8407008" class="para"><sup class="para">[117] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8430416"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8407744"></a>
Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>,
5 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927
and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
50192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8451008"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
27504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8428320"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> has been the president
of the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came
to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his almost forty years of
running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as perhaps the most
prominent and effective lobbyist in Washington.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
52768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8454192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8455024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8455856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8456672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8457488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8458304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
30080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8431504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8432336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8433120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8433936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8434752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8435568"></a><p>
The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal
was to defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.
owners must be accorded the same rights and protection resident in all
other property owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.
That is the question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire
-hearing and the debates to follow must rest.<a href="#ftn.idp8464704" class="footnote" name="idp8464704"><sup class="footnote">[118]</sup></a>
+hearing and the debates to follow must rest.<a href="#ftn.idp8441968" class="footnote" name="idp8441968"><sup class="footnote">[118]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
redefined that tradition, at least in Washington.
</p><p>
While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in a nerdy and
-precise sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<a href="#ftn.idp8472032" class="footnote" name="idp8472032"><sup class="footnote">[119]</sup></a> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that
+precise sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<a href="#ftn.idp8449344" class="footnote" name="idp8449344"><sup class="footnote">[119]</sup></a> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and
protection resident in all other property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative
property owners were given the same rights as all other property
creative property be given the same rights as all other property? Why
did they require that for creative property there must be a public
domain?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
93280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp84
70640"></a><p>
To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the
history of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
enabled. Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks
how four different modalities of regulation interact to support or
weaken the right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
508800"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
486144"></a><p>
At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or
group that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In
each case throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as
with a $150,000 fine. The fine is an ex post punishment for violating
an ex ante rule. It is imposed by the state.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8511136"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
512016"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8488480"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
489360"></a><p>
Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an
individual for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is
imposed by a community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be
sold. But given a set of norms, and a background of property and
contract law, the market imposes a simultaneous constraint upon how an
individual or group might behave.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
515568"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
492896"></a><p>
Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>—the physical world as one finds it—is a
constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your ability
blocks your way, it is the law of gravity that enforces this
constraint. If a $500 airplane ticket stands between you and a flight
to New York, it is the market that enforces this constraint.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
519200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8520528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8521856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
496528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8497856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8499184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is
be; my claim is not about comprehensiveness), these four are among the
most significant, and any regulator (whether controlling or freeing)
must consider how these four in particular interact.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
26768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8527584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8528400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
04160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8504976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8505792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></a><p>
So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a high
speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular
</p><p>
The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear:
While these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a
-special role in affecting the three.<a href="#ftn.idp8534448" class="footnote" name="idp8534448"><sup class="footnote">[120]</sup></a>
+special role in affecting the three.<a href="#ftn.idp8511888" class="footnote" name="idp8511888"><sup class="footnote">[120]</sup></a>
The law, in other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease
the constraint of a particular modality. Thus, the law might be used
to increase taxes on gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to
strict—a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
limit, for example—so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
driving.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
38144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8539472"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1361.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8543072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
15584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8516912"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1361.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8520576"></a><p>
These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To
understand the effective protection of liberty or protection of
property at any particular moment, we must track these changes over
time. A restriction imposed by one modality might be erased by
another. A freedom enabled by one modality might be displaced by
-another.<a href="#ftn.idp8544528" class="footnote" name="idp8544528"><sup class="footnote">[121]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
53328"></a><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Why Hollywood Is Right</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><p>
+another.<a href="#ftn.idp8522032" class="footnote" name="idp8522032"><sup class="footnote">[121]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
30832"></a><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Why Hollywood Is Right</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><p>
The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just
how, Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress
and the courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that
</p><p>
Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the
Internet:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.3. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
62784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.3. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
40032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on
uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but the norms
of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
this form of infringement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
68688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8569824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8570640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
46032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8547168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8547984"></a><p>
Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and
p2p sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically,
as does the constraint of the market. And as both the market and
architecture relax the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The
happy balance (for the warriors, at least) of life before the Internet
becomes an effective state of anarchy after the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
72256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8573568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8574896"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
49600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8550976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8552304"></a><p>
Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this
change, when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance
after the fall of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the
looting that results.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.4. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1381.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
79424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.4. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1381.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
56896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995,
innovative marketing techniques, (3) technologists should push to
develop code to protect copyrighted material, and (4) educators should
educate kids to better protect copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
83632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8584944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8586272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8587088"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
61104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8562416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8563744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8564560"></a><p>
This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to
preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced
by the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content
to bail them out when a virus (architecture) devastates their
crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to the government to bail
them out when imports (market) wipe out the U.S. steel industry.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
89456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8590704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8591968"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
66992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8568240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8569568"></a><p>
Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's
campaign to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a
technological innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that
the changing technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect
on the content industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely
Brown describes it, its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
93984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8594800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8595904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8596720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8597536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8598352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8599168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8599984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp85
71584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8572400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8573504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8574320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8575136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8575952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8576768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8577584"></a><p>
But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because
technology has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't
follow that the government should intervene to support that old way of
doing business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20
percent of their traditional film market to the emerging technologies
-of digital cameras.<a href="#ftn.idp8601504" class="footnote" name="idp8601504"><sup class="footnote">[122]</sup></a>
+of digital cameras.<a href="#ftn.idp8579104" class="footnote" name="idp8579104"><sup class="footnote">[122]</sup></a>
Does anyone believe the government should ban digital cameras just to
support Kodak? Highways have weakened the freight business for
market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to
reinforce commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function
only once a second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
608144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8608960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8609776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8610880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8611696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8612512"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
585744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8586560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8587376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8588480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8589296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8590112"></a><p>
The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.
In a free society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and
free trade, the government's role is not to support one way of doing
them against loss. If the government did this generally, then we would
never have any progress. As Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in
1991, in a memo criticizing software patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies
-have an interest in excluding future competitors.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8614704" class="footnote" name="idp8614704"><sup class="footnote">[123]</sup></a>
+have an interest in excluding future competitors.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8592304" class="footnote" name="idp8592304"><sup class="footnote">[123]</sup></a>
And relative to a
startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and
FM radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight
changes they create, in response to the request of those hurt by
changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and
opportunities for innovation and change.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
617456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8618528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8619344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
595424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8596496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8597312"></a><p>
In the context of laws regulating speech—which include,
obviously, copyright law—that duty is even stronger. When the
industry complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to
Congress is being asked to pass laws that would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom
of speech, it should ask— carefully—whether such
regulation is justified.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
22592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8623888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
00560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8601856"></a><p>
My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether
the changes that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
35120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8635936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
13264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8614080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></a><p>
But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>, which argued that
DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having unintended
environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
problems DDT caused were worse than the problems it solved, at least
when considering the other, more environmentally friendly ways to
solve the problems that DDT was meant to solve.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
40384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8641696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
18640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8619888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James
Boyle appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
-culture.<a href="#ftn.idp8645344" class="footnote" name="idp8645344"><sup class="footnote">[124]</sup></a>
+culture.<a href="#ftn.idp8623552" class="footnote" name="idp8623552"><sup class="footnote">[124]</sup></a>
His point, and the point I want to develop in the balance of this
chapter, is not that the aims of copyright are flawed. Or that authors
should not be paid for their work. Or that music should be given away
protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack on
authors. It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we
should be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
48704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
26912"></a><p>
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
effect on the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But
not be only that copyrighted work is effectively protected. Also, and
generally missed, the net effect of this massive increase in protection
will be devastating to the environment for creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
51008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
29216"></a><p>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
53040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8654304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8655680"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Beginnings</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8658096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8663024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8664096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8668656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
31248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8632560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8634000"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Beginnings</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8636400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8641376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8642448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8646992"></a><p>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
<span class="emphasis"><em>to promote progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its
purpose, and its purpose is a public one, not the purpose of enriching
publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
76352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
54688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw
in chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Chapter 6. Chapter Six: Founders">6</a>,
the English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few
followed the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the
English, the framers reinforced that objective, by requiring that
copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to Authors</span>»</span> only.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
83616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8684432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8685552"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
62032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8662848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8663968"></a><p>
The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers
built structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they
case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built checks and balances into
the constitutional frame, structured to prevent otherwise inevitable
concentrations of power.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
88016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8689408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
66432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8667824"></a><p>
I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>
today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they ever
considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need to put our
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has changed in the 210
years since they first struck its design.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
92240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8693616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8694992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8696320"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp86
70512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8671952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8673328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8674656"></a><p>
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
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.6. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1442.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Let me explain how.
-</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Law: Duration</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
710768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Law: Duration</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
689104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it
faced the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that
the English had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws
protecting creative property, and some believed that these laws simply
supplemented common law rights that already protected creative
-authorship.<a href="#ftn.idp8714416" class="footnote" name="idp8714416"><sup class="footnote">[125]</sup></a>
+authorship.<a href="#ftn.idp8692752" class="footnote" name="idp8692752"><sup class="footnote">[125]</sup></a>
This meant that there was no guaranteed public domain in the United
States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the common law, then
there was no simple way to know whether a work published in the United
States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public
domain to reprint and distribute works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
718176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
696512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law,
federal protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law
the author was alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could
opt to renew the copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not
renew the copyright, his work passed into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
24272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
02848"></a><p>
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
registered under the federal copyright regime. Of all the work created
in the United States both before 1790 and from 1790 through 1800, 95
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.<a href="#ftn.idp8726336" class="footnote" name="idp8726336"><sup class="footnote">[126]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
30512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8731792"></a><p>
+likely within fourteen years.<a href="#ftn.idp8704912" class="footnote" name="idp8704912"><sup class="footnote">[126]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
09088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8710368"></a><p>
This system of renewal was a crucial part of the American system
of copyright. It assured that the maximum terms of copyright would be
copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small
minority of them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the
balance allowed their work to pass into the public
-domain.<a href="#ftn.idp8734672" class="footnote" name="idp8734672"><sup class="footnote">[127]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
37840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8739168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8740272"></a><p>
+domain.<a href="#ftn.idp8713248" class="footnote" name="idp8713248"><sup class="footnote">[127]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
16416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8717744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8718848"></a><p>
Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work
has an actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall
-out of print after one year.<a href="#ftn.idp8741808" class="footnote" name="idp8741808"><sup class="footnote">[128]</sup></a> When that happens, the
+out of print after one year.<a href="#ftn.idp8720384" class="footnote" name="idp8720384"><sup class="footnote">[128]</sup></a> When that happens, the
used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the books are
no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time
In 1976, Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.
And in 1998, in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress
extended the term of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
54304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
32896"></a><p>
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 will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five
after the Sonny Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the
public domain, zero copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue
of the expiration of a copyright term.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
56624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
35216"></a><p>
The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the
framers established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright
would pass more quickly into the public domain. The works remaining
under protection would be those that had some continuing commercial
value.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
58848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8759632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8760752"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
37376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8738160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8739280"></a><p>
The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For
all works created after 1978, there was only one copyright term—the
maximum term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
is orphaned by these changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement
that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit
them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
64432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8765824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
42960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8744352"></a><p>
The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to
renew their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright
in 1973 was just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal
requirement, the average term of copyright is now the maximum term.
In thirty years, then, the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95
-years.<a href="#ftn.idp8767920" class="footnote" name="idp8767920"><sup class="footnote">[129]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
69584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8770832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8772160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8773440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8774720"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Law: Scope</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
+years.<a href="#ftn.idp8746448" class="footnote" name="idp8746448"><sup class="footnote">[129]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
48112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8749360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8750752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8752032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8753376"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Law: Scope</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> 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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
80576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
59120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><p>
In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave
of the history of American copyright law, there was a requirement that
works be deposited with the government before a copyright could be
secured.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
95584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
74144"></a><p>
The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible
understanding that for most works, no copyright was required. Again,
in the first ten years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible
that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the
original author.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
97216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp87
75840"></a><p>
All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American system when
we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no requirement
that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now is
automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with
a ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a
copy available for others to copy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
800512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8802048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8803312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
779072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8780672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8781872"></a><p>
Consider a practical example to understand the scope of these
differences.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact2"></a><p>
against another publisher's taking your book and republishing it
without your permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers
so as to prevent that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were
-174 publishers in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp8807232" class="footnote" name="idp8807232"><sup class="footnote">[130]</sup></a>
+174 publishers in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp8785728" class="footnote" name="idp8785728"><sup class="footnote">[130]</sup></a>
The Copyright Act was thus a tiny
regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative market in
the United States—publishers.
those activities were regulated by the original copyright act. These
creative activities remained free, while the activities of publishers
were restrained.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
816384"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
794992"></a><p>
Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail,
every note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span>
exclusive
right to your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings
and a large proportion of the writings inspired by them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
821008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
799552"></a><p>
It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our
framers, though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this
expansion
<span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone else's work
is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
all—they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should
-not protect derivative rights at all.<a href="#ftn.idp8824528" class="footnote" name="idp8824528"><sup class="footnote">[131]</sup></a>
+not protect derivative rights at all.<a href="#ftn.idp8803072" class="footnote" name="idp8803072"><sup class="footnote">[131]</sup></a>
Whether or not you go that far, it seems
plain that whatever wrong is involved is fundamentally different from
the wrong of direct piracy.
Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I
can go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I
can go to court and get an injunction against your transformative use
-of my book.<a href="#ftn.idp8828752" class="footnote" name="idp8828752"><sup class="footnote">[132]</sup></a>
+of my book.<a href="#ftn.idp8807296" class="footnote" name="idp8807296"><sup class="footnote">[132]</sup></a>
These two different uses of my creative work are treated the same.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
32112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8833456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8834272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
10688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8812080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8812896"></a><p>
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should
you be able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from
it without paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature
derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower:
simply to make clear that this expansion is a significant change from
the rights originally granted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
36896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8838160"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Law and Architecture: Reach</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
15520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8816784"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Law and Architecture: Reach</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users,
and authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making
-copies, and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<a href="#ftn.idp8845040" class="footnote" name="idp8845040"><sup class="footnote">[133]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
48896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
+copies, and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<a href="#ftn.idp8823744" class="footnote" name="idp8823744"><sup class="footnote">[133]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
27600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
<span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack
copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> be the trigger for copyright
law. More precisely, they should not <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be
the trigger for copyright law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
56112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
34832"></a><p>
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
Internet should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which
-the law of copyright automatically applies,<a href="#ftn.idp8858032" class="footnote" name="idp8858032"><sup class="footnote">[134]</sup></a>
+the law of copyright automatically applies,<a href="#ftn.idp8836752" class="footnote" name="idp8836752"><sup class="footnote">[134]</sup></a>
because it is clear that the
current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen,
by the legislators who enacted copyright law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
59488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8860720"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
38208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8839376"></a><p>
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely
empty circle.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.7. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="40%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1521.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksthreetypesofusesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightapplicabilityalteredbytechnologyof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtechnologycopyrightintentalteredby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs4"></a><p>
at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see
diagram in figure <a class="xref" href="#fig-1541" title="Figure 10.9. ">10.9</a>).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
82384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8883680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp88
61072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8862432"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="40%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1541.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><p>
Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses
that remain unregulated because the law considers these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>»</span>
-</p><
div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="40%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1541.svg" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8891952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8893056"></a><p>
+</p><
a class="indexterm" name="idp8870848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8871920"></a><p>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law
treats as unregulated because public policy demands that they remain
unregulated. You are free to quote from this book, even in a review
In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright owner's views.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
900848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8905792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
879584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8884464"></a><p>
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use
-of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<a href="#ftn.idp8907344" class="footnote" name="idp8907344"><sup class="footnote">[135]</sup></a>
+of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<a href="#ftn.idp8886016" class="footnote" name="idp8886016"><sup class="footnote">[135]</sup></a>
And because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a
digital network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses
that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
would defend the unregulated uses of copyrighted work must look
exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the burden of this
shift.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
908848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8910848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
887520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8889536"></a><p>
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
be no plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that
copyright law and hence the need for a fair use defense. The right to
read was effectively protected before because reading was not
regulated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
34128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8935472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8936800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8938128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8939520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
12640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8913984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8915312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8916640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8917904"></a><p>
This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for
free culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights
depend upon fair use—never even addressing the earlier question
<span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But when everything becomes
presumptively regulated, then the protections of fair use are not
enough.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
42272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8943552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8944816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8946128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8947376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8948704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8950048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
20656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8922000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8923264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8924512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8925824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8927216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8928560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was
in the business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies available
to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way to sell
videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors, put
the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
57440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
35952"></a><p>
The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began
to think about the Internet as another way to distribute these
previews. The idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span> Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book
before you buy the book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit
from the movie on-line before you bought it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
61424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
39936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors
that it intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet
(rather than sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as they had. So they filed a
lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these rights were in fact
their rights.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
68304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8969552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8974848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
46816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8948064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8953408"></a><p>
Disney countersued—for $100 million in damages. Those damages
were predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
Disney's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
77904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
56464"></a><p>
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
that gives Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't
copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the copyright owner's
control. The technology expands the scope of effective control,
because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
80304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8981616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8982928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8984320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8985648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8986960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8988304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8989120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8989936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
58864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8960112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8961360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8962688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8964080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8965456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8966800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8967616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8968432"></a><p>
No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for
control is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes & Noble has the
second important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
96976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8998064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
75408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8976496"></a><p>
In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.
The law, meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human,
trained in the tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that
tradition embraced, who said whether and how the law would restrict
your freedom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
99952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp89
78384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
There's a famous story about a battle between the Marx Brothers
and Warner Brothers. The Marxes intended to make a parody of
<em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers objected. They
wrote a nasty letter to the Marxes, warning them that there would be
serious legal consequences if they went forward with their
-plan.<a href="#ftn.idp9005088" class="footnote" name="idp9005088"><sup class="footnote">[136]</sup></a>
+plan.<a href="#ftn.idp8983552" class="footnote" name="idp8983552"><sup class="footnote">[136]</sup></a>
</p><p>
This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned
Warner Brothers that the Marx Brothers <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">were brothers long before
-you were.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9007680" class="footnote" name="idp9007680"><sup class="footnote">[137]</sup></a>
+you were.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8986144" class="footnote" name="idp8986144"><sup class="footnote">[137]</sup></a>
The Marx Brothers therefore owned the word
<em class="citetitle">brothers</em>, and if Warner Brothers insisted on
trying to control <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, then the Marx
problem with code regulations is that, unlike law, code has no
shame. Code would not get the humor of the Marx Brothers. The
consequence of that is not at all funny.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9014720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9015968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8993184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8994496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
Consider the life of my Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
An e-book is a book delivered in electronic form. An Adobe eBook is
software that publishers use to deliver e-books. It provides the
technology, and the publisher delivers the content by using the
technology.
-</p><p>
+</p><div class="figure-float" style="float: left;"><div class="figure"><a name="fig-example-adobe-ebook-reader"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.12. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/example-adobe-ebook-reader.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"></div><p>
In figure
<a class="xref" href="#fig-example-adobe-ebook-reader" title="Figure 10.12. ">10.12</a>
is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
<em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy cover, and then
a button at the bottom called Permissions.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-example-adobe-ebook-reader"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.12. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/example-adobe-ebook-reader.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><p>
If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the
permissions that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.13. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1612.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
print ten pages from the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the
permission to use the Read Aloud button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>
read aloud through the computer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
31200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9032016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
09504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9010320"></a><p>
Here's the e-book for another work in the public domain (including the
translation): Aristotle's <em class="citetitle">Politics</em>.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.14. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/
1621.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.14. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/
aristotele-ebook.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted
at all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear
the book.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.15. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1622.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
39392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9040224"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.15. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1622.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
17648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9018480"></a><p>
Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the
original e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of
Ideas</em>:
you use these works. For works under copyright, the copyright owner
certainly does have the power—up to the limits of the copyright
law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
-power.<a href="#ftn.idp9045808" class="footnote" name="idp9045808"><sup class="footnote">[138]</sup></a>
+power.<a href="#ftn.idp9024000" class="footnote" name="idp9024000"><sup class="footnote">[138]</sup></a>
When my e-book of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the
permission to copy only ten text selections into the memory every ten
days, what that really means is that the eBook Reader has enabled the
aloud—it's not that the company will sue you if you do; instead,
if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine simply
won't read aloud.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
50096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9051808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
28288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9030000"></a><p>
These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a
world where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when
could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe agree that
such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer because
the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
68960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9070288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
47040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9048368"></a><p>
The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most
innovative companies developing strategies to balance open access to
content with incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's
technology enables control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this
control. That incentive is understandable, yet what it creates is
often crazy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
72384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9073584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
50464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9051728"></a><p>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite
story of mine that makes the same point.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
how to teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com
was giving information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack
their computer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
84160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
62304"></a><p>
If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
<em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in
dance jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever
bit of tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature
than Sony had built.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
89168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9090480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9091728"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
67312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9068624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9069872"></a><p>
I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the
United States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience,
is it permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We
completely legal activity. One imagines that the owner of aibopet.com
thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could there be with teaching
a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
94880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp90
73024"></a><p>
Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show—
not literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic
named Ed Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic
lawyers, Ed Felten stood his ground. He was not about to be bullied
into being silent about something he knew very well.
</p><p>
-But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<a href="#ftn.idp9097392" class="footnote" name="idp9097392"><sup class="footnote">[139]</sup></a>
+But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<a href="#ftn.idp9075536" class="footnote" name="idp9075536"><sup class="footnote">[139]</sup></a>
He and a group of colleagues were working on a paper to be submitted
at conference. The paper was intended to describe the weakness in an
encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent
AIBO-ware's copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the
anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
117200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9118448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9119760"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
095232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9096480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9097792"></a><p>
And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system
of encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter
from an RIAA lawyer that read:
measures. It was designed to ban those devices, whether or not the use
of the copyrighted material made possible by that circumvention would
have been a copyright violation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
28400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9129216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9130032"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
06496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9107312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9108128"></a><p>
Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to
dance jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted
suggested, Felten himself was distributing a circumvention technology.
Thus, even though he was not himself infringing anyone's copyright,
his academic paper was enabling others to infringe others' copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
33296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
11392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in
1981 by Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that
the VCR could be banned because it was a copyright-infringing
that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span>
for example, had testified in that case that he wanted people to feel
free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9137312"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9115472"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that
you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe I'm going on too long,
but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active
in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
-important.<a href="#ftn.idp9141328" class="footnote" name="idp9141328"><sup class="footnote">[140]</sup></a>
+important.<a href="#ftn.idp9119488" class="footnote" name="idp9119488"><sup class="footnote">[140]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were
This led Conrad to draw the cartoon in figure
<a class="xref" href="#fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig" title="Figure 10.18. — On which item have the courts ruled that manufacturers and retailers be held responsible for having supplied the equipment?">10.18</a>, which we can adopt to the
DMCA.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9148176"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9126400"></a>
</p><p>
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
-</p><p>
+</p><div class="figure-float" style="float: left;"><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.18. — On which item have the courts ruled that manufacturers and
+retailers be held responsible for having supplied the
+equipment?</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="65%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/vcr-comic.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="— On which item have the courts ruled that manufacturers and retailers be held responsible for having supplied the equipment?"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"></div><p>
The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright
circumvention technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for
different ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive
practice or to protect against an intruder. At least some would say that
such a use would be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good
and bad uses.
-</p><div class="figure-float" style="float: left;"><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.18. — On which item have the courts ruled that manufacturers and
-retailers be held responsible for having supplied the
-equipment?</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="100%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1711.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="— On which item have the courts ruled that manufacturers and retailers be held responsible for having supplied the equipment?"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9155648"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9133808"></a><p>
The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world
where guns are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and
circumvention technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever
died from copyright circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention
technologies absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some
good, but permits guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
57680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9158880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9160128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9160944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9161760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
35808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9137120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9138432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9139248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9140064"></a><p>
The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are
changing the balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright
owners restrict fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would
gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of fan
fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then
-simply continue it.<a href="#ftn.idp9167808" class="footnote" name="idp9167808"><sup class="footnote">[141]</sup></a>
+simply continue it.<a href="#ftn.idp9146112" class="footnote" name="idp9146112"><sup class="footnote">[141]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated
activity. No matter what happened inside your club room, you would
never be interfered with by the copyright police. You were free in
that space to do as you wished with this part of our culture. You were
allowed to build on it as you wished without fear of legal control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
70528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
48832"></a><p>
But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would
</p><p>
These changes are of two sorts: the scope of concentration, and its
nature.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
78240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9179024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9179856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9180640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9181456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9182272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
56592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9157376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9158160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9158992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9159808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9160624"></a><p>
Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John
McCain summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media
-ownership, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media sources.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9183760" class="footnote" name="idp9183760"><sup class="footnote">[142]</sup></a>
+ownership, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media sources.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9162112" class="footnote" name="idp9162112"><sup class="footnote">[142]</sup></a>
The five recording labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music
Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the
-U.S. music market.<a href="#ftn.idp9184976" class="footnote" name="idp9184976"><sup class="footnote">[143]</sup></a>
+U.S. music market.<a href="#ftn.idp9163328" class="footnote" name="idp9163328"><sup class="footnote">[143]</sup></a>
The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
-programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers nationwide.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9187104" class="footnote" name="idp9187104"><sup class="footnote">[144]</sup></a>
+programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers nationwide.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9165456" class="footnote" name="idp9165456"><sup class="footnote">[144]</sup></a>
</p><p>
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation,
the nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
markets, the two largest broadcasters control 74 percent of that
market's revenues. Overall, just four companies control 90 percent of
the nation's radio advertising revenues.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
90608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
69008"></a><p>
Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well. Today,
there are six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than
there were eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the
of all cable revenue. This is a market far from the free press the
framers sought to protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well
protected— by the market.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
91648"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp91
70048"></a><p>
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,
through which the content reaches the customers. Murdoch's satellite
systems now distribute News Corp. content in Europe and Asia; if
Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that system will serve
-the same function in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp9194448" class="footnote" name="idp9194448"><sup class="footnote">[145]</sup></a>
+the same function in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp9172848" class="footnote" name="idp9172848"><sup class="footnote">[145]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not
just large companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies
</p><p>
Here's a representative story that begins to suggest how this
integration may matter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
202848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9203632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9204416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
181312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9182096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9182880"></a><p>
In 1969, Norman Lear created a pilot for <em class="citetitle">All in the Family</em>. He took
the pilot to ABC. The network didn't like it. It was too edgy, they told
Lear. Make it again. Lear made a second pilot, more edgy than the
Rather than comply, Lear simply took the show elsewhere. CBS
was happy to have the series; ABC could not stop Lear from walking.
The copyrights that Lear held assured an independence from network
-control.<a href="#ftn.idp9206848" class="footnote" name="idp9206848"><sup class="footnote">[146]</sup></a>
+control.<a href="#ftn.idp9185312" class="footnote" name="idp9185312"><sup class="footnote">[146]</sup></a>
</p><p>
it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by
controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16
new series were produced independently of conglomerate control, last
-year there was one.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9213456" class="footnote" name="idp9213456"><sup class="footnote">[147]</sup></a>
+year there was one.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9191872" class="footnote" name="idp9191872"><sup class="footnote">[147]</sup></a>
In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was owned by the networks
that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number
of prime time television hours per week produced by network studios
increased over 200%, whereas the number of prime time television hours
per week produced by independent studios decreased
-63%.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9216000" class="footnote" name="idp9216000"><sup class="footnote">[148]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
216992"></a><p>
+63%.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9194416" class="footnote" name="idp9194416"><sup class="footnote">[148]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
195408"></a><p>
Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the Family</em> would
find that he had the choice either to make the show less edgy or to be
fired: The content of any show developed for a network is increasingly
owned by the network.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
218864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9219680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
197280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9198096"></a><p>
While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the ownership
of those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller few. As
Barry Diller said to Bill Moyers,
u]sed to have dozens and dozens of thriving independent production
companies producing television programs. Now you have less than a
-handful.<a href="#ftn.idp9222352" class="footnote" name="idp9222352"><sup class="footnote">[149]</sup></a>
+handful.<a href="#ftn.idp9200768" class="footnote" name="idp9200768"><sup class="footnote">[149]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such
large and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.
to Siberia, but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical,
different views are quashed. This is not the environment for a
democracy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
25312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
03728"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's
Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms find it rational to ignore
new, breakthrough technologies that compete with their core business.
The same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media
-companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<a href="#ftn.idp9228016" class="footnote" name="idp9228016"><sup class="footnote">[150]</sup></a>
+companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<a href="#ftn.idp9206432" class="footnote" name="idp9206432"><sup class="footnote">[150]</sup></a>
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.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9231424"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9209840"></a>
</p><p>
I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media
market to say with certainty what concentration and integration will
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommercials"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtelevisionadvertisingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
41264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommercials"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtelevisionadvertisingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
20480"></a><p>
Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched
a media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign produced
scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal drugs. In
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?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
45648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9246720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9247536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9248656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
24864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9225936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9226752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9227872"></a><p>
No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9251008" class="footnote" name="idp9251008"><sup class="footnote">[151]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
63520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9264768"></a><p>
+rights of the stations to be this biased.<a href="#ftn.idp9230224" class="footnote" name="idp9230224"><sup class="footnote">[151]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
42736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9244048"></a><p>
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
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
67184"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Together</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp92
46528"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Together</h2></div></div></div><p>
There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the
copyright warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span>
In the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9278736" class="footnote" name="idp9278736"><sup class="footnote">[152]</sup></a>
+known.<a href="#ftn.idp9257952" class="footnote" name="idp9257952"><sup class="footnote">[152]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>This has been</strong></span> a long chapter. Its
point can now be briefly stated.
course copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> 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<a href="#ftn.idp9321152" class="footnote" name="idp9321152"><sup class="footnote">[153]</sup></a>)
+property rights<a href="#ftn.idp9300544" class="footnote" name="idp9300544"><sup class="footnote">[153]</sup></a>)
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
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp93
25488"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp93
04880"></a><p>
We achieved that free culture because our law respected important
limits on the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those limits, by
opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened in a world in
which creation requires permission and creativity must check with a
lawyer.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8464704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8464704" class="para"><sup class="para">[118] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8441968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8441968" class="para"><sup class="para">[118] </sup></a>
Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.
4794, H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the
Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack
Valenti).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8472032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8472032" class="para"><sup class="para">[119] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8449344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8449344" class="para"><sup class="para">[119] </sup></a>
Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle
of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
the best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property and the
Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 26–27.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8534448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8534448" class="para"><sup class="para">[120] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8511888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8511888" class="para"><sup class="para">[120] </sup></a>
By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't
mean to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they
Other Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95;
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Legal Studies</em>,
June 1998.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8544528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8544528" class="para"><sup class="para">[121] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8522032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8522032" class="para"><sup class="para">[121] </sup></a>
Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They object
because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any
conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The effect of
those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand the
effective liberty that each of these groups might face.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8549760"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8550592"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8551408"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8552256"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8601504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8601504" class="para"><sup class="para">[122] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8527264"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8528096"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8528912"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8529760"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8579104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8579104" class="para"><sup class="para">[122] </sup></a>
See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?</span>»</span>
BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at
R. Schoenberger, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6
October 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #24</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8614704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8614704" class="para"><sup class="para">[123] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8592304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8592304" class="para"><sup class="para">[123] </sup></a>
Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley, 1994), 170–71.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8645344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8645344" class="para"><sup class="para">[124] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8623552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8623552" class="para"><sup class="para">[124] </sup></a>
See, for example, James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8714416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8714416" class="para"><sup class="para">[125] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8692752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8692752" class="para"><sup class="para">[125] </sup></a>
William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History of
the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953), vol. 1,
Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had, or
were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
(emphasis added).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8716704"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8726336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8726336" class="para"><sup class="para">[126] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8695040"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8704912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8704912" class="para"><sup class="para">[126] </sup></a>
Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790
to 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly, because the term of
copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was fourteen years,
with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen years. Copyright
-Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8734672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8734672" class="para"><sup class="para">[127] </sup></a>
+Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8713248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8713248" class="para"><sup class="para">[127] </sup></a>
Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For
instance, of the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were
1963), 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William
M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471, 498–501, and
-accompanying figures. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8741808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8741808" class="para"><sup class="para">[128] </sup></a>
+accompanying figures. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8720384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8720384" class="para"><sup class="para">[128] </sup></a>
-See Ringer, ch. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8767920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8767920" class="para"><sup class="para">[129] </sup></a>
+See Ringer, ch. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8746448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8746448" class="para"><sup class="para">[129] </sup></a>
These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the
first year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never
more than thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and
Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8807232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8807232" class="para"><sup class="para">[130] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8785728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8785728" class="para"><sup class="para">[130] </sup></a>
See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University Journal of
International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James Gilraeth, ed.,
Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O., 1987).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8824528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8824528" class="para"><sup class="para">[131] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8803072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8803072" class="para"><sup class="para">[131] </sup></a>
Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Legal
Affairs</em>, July/August 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8827024"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8828752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8828752" class="para"><sup class="para">[132] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8805568"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8807296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8807296" class="para"><sup class="para">[132] </sup></a>
Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument
about the difference that copyright law should draw (from the
Copyright's Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law
Journal</em> 112 (2002): 1–60 (see especially
pp. 53–59).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8830896"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8845040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8845040" class="para"><sup class="para">[133] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8809504"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8823744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8823744" class="para"><sup class="para">[133] </sup></a>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law
certainly regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>—a public performance of a
<em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the presumption under the
existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span> 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8858032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8858032" class="para"><sup class="para">[134] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8836752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8836752" class="para"><sup class="para">[134] </sup></a>
Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law
extends, we should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good
argument for its extending where it does, and should not determine its
reach on the basis of arbitrary and automatic changes caused by
technology.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8907344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8907344" class="para"><sup class="para">[135] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8886016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8886016" class="para"><sup class="para">[135] </sup></a>
I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be different, but
rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical networks
need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital network
could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same number
of copies remain.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9005088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9005088" class="para"><sup class="para">[136] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8983552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8983552" class="para"><sup class="para">[136] </sup></a>
See David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Law and
Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172–73.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9007680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9007680" class="para"><sup class="para">[137] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8986144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8986144" class="para"><sup class="para">[137] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9008384"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8986848"></a>
Ibid. See also Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
Copywrongs</em>, 1–3.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9045808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9045808" class="para"><sup class="para">[138] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9024000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9024000" class="para"><sup class="para">[138] </sup></a>
In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might,
for example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I
obligation) would come from the contract, not from copyright law, and
the obligations of contract would not necessarily pass to anyone who
subsequently acquired the book.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9097392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9097392" class="para"><sup class="para">[139] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9075536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9075536" class="para"><sup class="para">[139] </sup></a>
See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles
April 2001; Electronic Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked
Questions about <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9104272"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9141328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9141328" class="para"><sup class="para">[140] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9082416"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9119488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9119488" class="para"><sup class="para">[140] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9142064"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9120224"></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417,
455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the VCR. See
James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of
the VCR</em> (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9009680"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9167808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9167808" class="para"><sup class="para">[141] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8988144"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9146112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9146112" class="para"><sup class="para">[141] </sup></a>
For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal Fictions,
Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles
Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17 (1997): 651.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9183760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9183760" class="para"><sup class="para">[142] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9162112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9162112" class="para"><sup class="para">[142] </sup></a>
FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)
-(statement of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp9184976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9184976" class="para"><sup class="para">[143] </sup></a>
+(statement of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp9163328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9163328" class="para"><sup class="para">[143] </sup></a>
Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9187104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9187104" class="para"><sup class="para">[144] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9165456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9165456" class="para"><sup class="para">[144] </sup></a>
Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>,
31 May 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9194448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9194448" class="para"><sup class="para">[145] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9172848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9172848" class="para"><sup class="para">[145] </sup></a>
James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em> (September
2003): 89.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9196560"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9206848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9206848" class="para"><sup class="para">[146] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9174960"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9185312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9185312" class="para"><sup class="para">[146] </sup></a>
Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum Center
Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span> St. Louis,
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>;
for the Lear story, not included in the prepared remarks, see
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9213456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9213456" class="para"><sup class="para">[147] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9191872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9191872" class="para"><sup class="para">[147] </sup></a>
NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West,
in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February
2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9216000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9216000" class="para"><sup class="para">[148] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9194416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9194416" class="para"><sup class="para">[148] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9222352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9222352" class="para"><sup class="para">[149] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9200768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9200768" class="para"><sup class="para">[149] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with Bill Moyers</em>, Bill
Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9228016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9228016" class="para"><sup class="para">[150] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9206432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9206432" class="para"><sup class="para">[150] </sup></a>
Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do Business</em>
235–51. For a more recent study, see Richard Foster and Sarah
Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last
Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them</em>
-(New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp9251008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9251008" class="para"><sup class="para">[151] </sup></a>
-
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9251744"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9252496"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9253312"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9254144"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9254976"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9255792"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9256576"></a>
+(New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp9230224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9230224" class="para"><sup class="para">[151] </sup></a>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9230960"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9231712"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9232528"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9233360"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9234192"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9235008"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9235792"></a>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#32</a>. The ground was that the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too
controversial.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9278736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9278736" class="para"><sup class="para">[152] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9257952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9257952" class="para"><sup class="para">[152] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9279808"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9259024"></a>
Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">four surrenders</span>»</span> of
copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9321152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9321152" class="para"><sup class="para">[153] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9300544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9300544" class="para"><sup class="para">[153] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9321888"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9301280"></a>
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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
<span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> 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.<a href="#ftn.idp9343632" class="footnote" name="idp9343632"><sup class="footnote">[154]</sup></a>
+Andes.<a href="#ftn.idp9323040" class="footnote" name="idp9323040"><sup class="footnote">[154]</sup></a>
The valley is extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture,
an even climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub
that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez
plot for murder mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent
certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at the
scene. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp93
61504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9362608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp93
40912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9342016"></a><p>
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
(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.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9371264"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9350672"></a>
</p><p>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9375056" class="footnote" name="idp9375056"><sup class="footnote">[155]</sup></a>
+implemented.<a href="#ftn.idp9354464" class="footnote" name="idp9354464"><sup class="footnote">[155]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp93
86240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp93
65648"></a><p>
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
which they will be able to access digital media and the equipment
that they will require to do so. Poor choices made this early in the
game will retard the growth of this market, hurting everyone's
-interests.<a href="#ftn.idp9395024" class="footnote" name="idp9395024"><sup class="footnote">[156]</sup></a>
+interests.<a href="#ftn.idp9374432" class="footnote" name="idp9374432"><sup class="footnote">[156]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal,
one of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
changed.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9397696"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9377104"></a>
</p><p>
Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash
piracy. It will sacrifice values that are important to this culture,
and will kill opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9343632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9343632" class="para"><sup class="para">[154] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9323040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9323040" class="para"><sup class="para">[154] </sup></a>
H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells,
<em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9375056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9375056" class="para"><sup class="para">[155] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9354464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9354464" class="para"><sup class="para">[155] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9375760"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9355168"></a>
For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003,
identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9384352"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9385168"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9395024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9395024" class="para"><sup class="para">[156] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9363760"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9364576"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9374432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9374432" class="para"><sup class="para">[156] </sup></a>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
first time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the
power of the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest in
our history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
405392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9406208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
384848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9385664"></a><p>
Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> 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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
408528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
387984"></a><p>
There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to
describe just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite
on remote topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative
work spread across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this
work is presumptively illegal.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
416672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9417456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9418576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9419696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9420528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
396064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9396848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9397968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9399088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9399920"></a><p>
That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the
examples of extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to
proliferate. It is impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed
to be copied. Yet World-Com—which defrauded investors of $11
billion, resulting in a loss to investors in market capitalization of
over $200 billion—received a fine of a mere $750
-million.<a href="#ftn.idp9423312" class="footnote" name="idp9423312"><sup class="footnote">[157]</sup></a>
+million.<a href="#ftn.idp9402704" class="footnote" name="idp9402704"><sup class="footnote">[157]</sup></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9427200" class="footnote" name="idp9427200"><sup class="footnote">[158]</sup></a>
+suffering.<a href="#ftn.idp9406592" class="footnote" name="idp9406592"><sup class="footnote">[158]</sup></a>
Can common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where
the maximum fine for downloading two songs off the Internet is more
than the fine for a doctor's negligently butchering a patient?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
32048"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
11440"></a><p>
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely
high penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will
either never be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive
message is necessarily political, or because the subject is
controversial, but because the very act of creating the art is legally
fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal art</span>»</span> tour the United
-States.<a href="#ftn.idp9435200" class="footnote" name="idp9435200"><sup class="footnote">[159]</sup></a>
+States.<a href="#ftn.idp9414592" class="footnote" name="idp9414592"><sup class="footnote">[159]</sup></a>
In what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist?
In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that is
critical or reflective.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
39136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
18528"></a><p>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the
changing law. I described that change in detail in chapter
<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>. But an
content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a list of
the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that anyone
could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
41952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
21344"></a><p>
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether
his painting infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day
painter, using the tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web,
perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which regulation
simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect themselves
against the competitors of tomorrow.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
64896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9467024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9467840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
43952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9446848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9447664"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory
strategy that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive
that were designed and executed to teach venture capitalists a
lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry calls a
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the Valley—has been learned.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
71408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9472048"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
51232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9451872"></a><p>
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning
I told in <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way that
even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
76960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
56832"></a><p>
In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com
was keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to
facilitate new ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to
facilitate new ways to create content. Unlike the major labels,
MP3.com offered creators a venue to distribute their creativity,
without demanding an exclusive engagement from the creators.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
78576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
58448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
my.mp3.com service was to give users access to their own content, and
as a by-product, by seeing the content they already owned, to discover
the kind of content the users liked.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
84064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
63888"></a><p>
To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000
CDs to a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who
uploaded the music, but that would have taken a great deal of time,
had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while this was 50,000
copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers something
they had already bought.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
88432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9489568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9492640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9493760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9494864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
68304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9469440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9472496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9473616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9474720"></a><p>
Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels,
headed by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled
with four of the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found
illegal; therefore, this lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had
dared to suggest that the law was less restrictive than the labels
demanded.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
98240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp94
78096"></a><p>
The clear purpose of this lawsuit (which was settled for an
unspecified amount shortly after the story was no longer covered in
the press) was to send an unequivocal message to lawyers advising
industry directs its guns against them. It is also you. So those of
you who believe the law should be less restrictive should realize that
such a view of the law will cost you and your firm dearly.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
500768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9501984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9503232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9504672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9505488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9509504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9510288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9511104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9511920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9512736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9513552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9516176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9516992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
480624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9481904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9483216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9484656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9485472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9489616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9490400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9491216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9492032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9492848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9493664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9496288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9497104"></a><p>
This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003,
Universal and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the
venture capital firm (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of
its development, its cofounder (John Hummer), and general partner
-(Hank Barry).<a href="#ftn.idp9518368" class="footnote" name="idp9518368"><sup class="footnote">[160]</sup></a>
+(Hank Barry).<a href="#ftn.idp9498480" class="footnote" name="idp9498480"><sup class="footnote">[160]</sup></a>
The claim here, as well, was that the VC should have recognized the
right of the content industry to control how the industry should
develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a company
the car's built-in sound system, but that the company's marketing
and legal departments weren't comfortable with pushing this
forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are sold in the
-United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <a href="#ftn.idp9451520" class="footnote" name="idp9451520"><sup class="footnote">[161]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
28352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9529664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9530976"></a><p>
+United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <a href="#ftn.idp9430384" class="footnote" name="idp9430384"><sup class="footnote">[161]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
08464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9509712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9511024"></a><p>
This is the world of the mafia—filled with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">your money or your
life</span>»</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
that the law empowers copyright holders to exercise. It is a system
innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and
unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and
much less creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
36064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
15408"></a><p>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of law in
both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
of content. One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make
the Internet less efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then,
this response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
43216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
22560"></a><p>
The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of
the content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that
would require computers to determine whether the content they access
-is protected or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<a href="#ftn.idp9544576" class="footnote" name="idp9544576"><sup class="footnote">[162]</sup></a>
+is protected or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<a href="#ftn.idp9523920" class="footnote" name="idp9523920"><sup class="footnote">[162]</sup></a>
Congress has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on any device capable of
transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would disable
the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast flag. Other
members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers from
liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt down
-copyright violators and disable their machines.<a href="#ftn.idp9547520" class="footnote" name="idp9547520"><sup class="footnote">[163]</sup></a>
+copyright violators and disable their machines.<a href="#ftn.idp9526864" class="footnote" name="idp9526864"><sup class="footnote">[163]</sup></a>
</p><p>
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the
code, why not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any
the technology, but will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly
those requirements.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
49632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
28976"></a><p>
In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by
Intel, tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation
-would impose.<a href="#ftn.idp9550832" class="footnote" name="idp9550832"><sup class="footnote">[164]</sup></a>
+would impose.<a href="#ftn.idp9530176" class="footnote" name="idp9530176"><sup class="footnote">[164]</sup></a>
Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not be
protected. Instead, they argued, any protection should not do more
harm than good.
of regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.
When done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done
wrong, it is regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
54480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9555552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9556368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9557184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp95
33824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9534896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9535712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9536528"></a><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as
regulation, and subject to important qualifications outlined by
Jessica Litman in her book <em class="citetitle">Digital
-Copyright</em>,<a href="#ftn.idp9560064" class="footnote" name="idp9560064"><sup class="footnote">[165]</sup></a>
+Copyright</em>,<a href="#ftn.idp9539408" class="footnote" name="idp9539408"><sup class="footnote">[165]</sup></a>
overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter
<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a> details,
when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a balance
creators, both the courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions
that will have the effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetradioon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiooninternet"></a><p>
-The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<a href="#ftn.idp9569040" class="footnote" name="idp9569040"><sup class="footnote">[166]</sup></a>
+The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<a href="#ftn.idp9548496" class="footnote" name="idp9548496"><sup class="footnote">[166]</sup></a>
It has been mirrored in the responses threatened and actually
implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
-here.<a href="#ftn.idp9573360" class="footnote" name="idp9573360"><sup class="footnote">[167]</sup></a>
+here.<a href="#ftn.idp7002032" class="footnote" name="idp7002032"><sup class="footnote">[167]</sup></a>
But there is one example that captures the flavor of them all. This is
the story of the demise of Internet radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9580112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9581200"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7008784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7009872"></a><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Chapter Four: «Pirates»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording
easily develop and market their content to a relatively large number
of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9589600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7016784"></a><p>
Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an
became possible for men freely to acquire printing presses and freely
to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention as the
printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
-shackles.<a href="#ftn.idp9524608" class="footnote" name="idp9524608"><sup class="footnote">[168]</sup></a>
+shackles.<a href="#ftn.idp9504720" class="footnote" name="idp9504720"><sup class="footnote">[168]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This potential for FM radio was never realized—not
because Armstrong was wrong about the technology, but because he
underestimated the power of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and
-legislation</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9594656" class="footnote" name="idp9594656"><sup class="footnote">[169]</sup></a>
+legislation</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9590496" class="footnote" name="idp9590496"><sup class="footnote">[169]</sup></a>
to retard the growth of this competing technology.
</p><p>
Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For
those imposed by the law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first
question we should ask is, what copyright rules would govern Internet
radio?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp959
8224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9599328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9600432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp959
4176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9595280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9596384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></a><p>
But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a
new industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9614064" class="footnote" name="idp9614064"><sup class="footnote">[170]</sup></a>
+over $1 million a year.<a href="#ftn.idp9610064" class="footnote" name="idp9610064"><sup class="footnote">[170]</sup></a>
A regular radio station broadcasting the same content would pay no
equivalent fee.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp961
9728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9621120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9622448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9623776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9625152"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp961
5728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9617120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9618512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9619840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9621216"></a><p>
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio
station) would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every
unique user identifier;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
the country in which the user received the transmissions.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp96
43248"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp96
39376"></a><p>
The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting
requirements, pending further study. And he also changed the original
rates set by the arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the
Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the
economic consequences from Internet radio that would justify these
differences? Was the motive to protect artists against piracy?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp964
5824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp964
1952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></a><p>
In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious
to everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public
Policy at Real Networks, told me,
that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so
high, you're going to drive the small webcasters out of
business. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp965
6560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp965
2688"></a><p>
And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be
an industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a
high rate and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis
added.)
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp965
9264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9660512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9661920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9663312"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp965
5392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9656640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9658048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9659376"></a><p>
Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so
that this platform of potentially immense competition, which would
cause the diversity and range of content available to explode, would not
or the left, who should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is
practically no one, on either the right or the left, who is doing anything
effective to prevent it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp966
5552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9666880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9668272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9669648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9670896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9672208"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp966
1552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9662880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9664208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9665584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9666832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9668144"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
dinosaurs
a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with
every war of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very
large number of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43 million
-Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<a href="#ftn.idp9676976" class="footnote" name="idp9676976"><sup class="footnote">[171]</sup></a>
+Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<a href="#ftn.idp9672848" class="footnote" name="idp9672848"><sup class="footnote">[171]</sup></a>
According to the RIAA,
the behavior of those 43 million Americans is a felony. We thus have a
set of rules that transform 20 percent of America into criminals. As the
RIAA's suits against individual users. In September 2003, the RIAA
sued 261 individuals—including a twelve-year-old girl living in public
housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what file sharing
-was.<a href="#ftn.idp9613168" class="footnote" name="idp9613168"><sup class="footnote">[172]</sup></a>
+was.<a href="#ftn.idp9609168" class="footnote" name="idp9609168"><sup class="footnote">[172]</sup></a>
As these scapegoats discovered, it will always cost more to defend
against these suits than it would cost to simply settle. (The twelve
year old, for example, like Jesse Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000
is an embarrassment to our tradition. And the consequence of our law
as it is, is that those with the power can use the law to quash any rights
they oppose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp96
83984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp96
79856"></a><p>
Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just
something more extreme than anything we've seen before. We
experimented with alcohol prohibition, at a time when the per capita
of its preprohibition levels, but by the end of prohibition,
consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast
-number were criminals.<a href="#ftn.idp9685616" class="footnote" name="idp9685616"><sup class="footnote">[173]</sup></a>
+number were criminals.<a href="#ftn.idp9681488" class="footnote" name="idp9681488"><sup class="footnote">[173]</sup></a>
We have
launched a war on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated
-narcotics that 7 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<a href="#ftn.idp9687904" class="footnote" name="idp9687904"><sup class="footnote">[174]</sup></a>
+narcotics that 7 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<a href="#ftn.idp9683776" class="footnote" name="idp9683776"><sup class="footnote">[174]</sup></a>
That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast
majority of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex
tax system that a majority of cash businesses regularly
-cheat.<a href="#ftn.idp9689232" class="footnote" name="idp9689232"><sup class="footnote">[175]</sup></a>
+cheat.<a href="#ftn.idp9685104" class="footnote" name="idp9685104"><sup class="footnote">[175]</sup></a>
We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of
ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a
huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp96
91792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp96
87664"></a><p>
This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law
students about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was a
right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp970
4992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp970
1136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large
process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful
the world where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of
plastic or were part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights
management</span>»</span> system.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp97
11712"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp97
07920"></a><p>
If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination
of the ability to freely move content, then these technologies to
interfere with the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But
Valenti is charming; but not so charming as to justify giving up a
tradition as deep and important as our tradition of free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp971
7328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp971
3600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and
follows directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn
a very large percentage of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This
is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp97
21824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp97
18192"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>»</span> von Lohmann
explains,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
family's computer is used to download a single CD's worth of music,
the family could be liable for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop
the RIAA from suing a number of these families, just as they had sued
-Jesse Jordan.<a href="#ftn.idp9728288" class="footnote" name="idp9728288"><sup class="footnote">[176]</sup></a>
+Jesse Jordan.<a href="#ftn.idp9724656" class="footnote" name="idp9724656"><sup class="footnote">[176]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the
RIAA. A report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the
-RIAA had adopted to track Napster users.<a href="#ftn.idp9734432" class="footnote" name="idp9734432"><sup class="footnote">[177]</sup></a>
+RIAA had adopted to track Napster users.<a href="#ftn.idp9730800" class="footnote" name="idp9730800"><sup class="footnote">[177]</sup></a>
Using a sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in
effect a fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of
one of those MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
properly protected her content from the network (do you know how to do
that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to identify your daughter
as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules that universities are beginning
-to deploy,<a href="#ftn.idp9739040" class="footnote" name="idp9739040"><sup class="footnote">[178]</sup></a>
+to deploy,<a href="#ftn.idp9735408" class="footnote" name="idp9735408"><sup class="footnote">[178]</sup></a>
your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
network. She can, in some cases, be expelled.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp974
7376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9748688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp974
3744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9745056"></a><p>
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire
a lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can
plead that she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or
considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain? Americans or the law?
Which is American, a constant war on our own people or a concerted
effort through our democracy to change our law?
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9423312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9423312" class="para"><sup class="para">[157] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9402704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9402704" class="para"><sup class="para">[157] </sup></a>
See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom</em>
(Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204; for details of
the settlement, see MCI press release, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins U.S. District Court
Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7 July 2003), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9426048"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9427200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9427200" class="para"><sup class="para">[158] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9405440"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9406592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9406592" class="para"><sup class="para">[158] </sup></a>
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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,'
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in
recent months.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9430768"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9435200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9435200" class="para"><sup class="para">[159] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9410160"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9414592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9414592" class="para"><sup class="para">[159] </sup></a>
See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7 July
2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For an overview of the exhibition, see
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9518368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9518368" class="para"><sup class="para">[160] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9498480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9498480" class="para"><sup class="para">[160] </sup></a>
See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel argument about the effects on
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>.
See also Jon Healey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9451520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9451520" class="para"><sup class="para">[161] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9430384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9430384" class="para"><sup class="para">[161] </sup></a>
Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16 June
2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. I am grateful
to Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9527152"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9544576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9544576" class="para"><sup class="para">[162] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9507264"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9523920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9523920" class="para"><sup class="para">[162] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> GartnerG2 and
the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School
(2003), 33–35, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9547520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9547520" class="para"><sup class="para">[163] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9526864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9526864" class="para"><sup class="para">[163] </sup></a>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9550832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9550832" class="para"><sup class="para">[164] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9530176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9530176" class="para"><sup class="para">[164] </sup></a>
See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span> Newsbytes,
February 2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9560064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9560064" class="para"><sup class="para">[165] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9539408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9539408" class="para"><sup class="para">[165] </sup></a>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst,
N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2001).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9561280"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9562112"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9569040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9569040" class="para"><sup class="para">[166] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9540624"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9541456"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9548496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9548496" class="para"><sup class="para">[166] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9569776"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9549232"></a>
The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d
1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement
liability.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9573360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9573360" class="para"><sup class="para">[167] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7002032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7002032" class="para"><sup class="para">[167] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9574096"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9574880"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9575696"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9576512"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7002768"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7003552"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7004368"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7005184"></a>
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,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, 33–34,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9524608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9524608" class="para"><sup class="para">[168] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9504720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9504720" class="para"><sup class="para">[168] </sup></a>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9594656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9594656" class="para"><sup class="para">[169] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9590496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9590496" class="para"><sup class="para">[169] </sup></a>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9614064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9614064" class="para"><sup class="para">[170] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9610064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9610064" class="para"><sup class="para">[170] </sup></a>
This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright
Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an
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.</span>»</span>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9617776"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9618560"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9676976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9676976" class="para"><sup class="para">[171] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9613776"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9614560"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9672848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9672848" class="para"><sup class="para">[171] </sup></a>
Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span> Pew
Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #46</a>.
The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that 37 million
Americans had downloaded music files from the Internet by early 2001.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9613168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9613168" class="para"><sup class="para">[172] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9609168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9609168" class="para"><sup class="para">[172] </sup></a>
Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003, Business.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9685616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9685616" class="para"><sup class="para">[173] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9681488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9681488" class="para"><sup class="para">[173] </sup></a>
Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81, no. 2 (1991): 242.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9687904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9687904" class="para"><sup class="para">[174] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9683776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9683776" class="para"><sup class="para">[174] </sup></a>
National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government
Reform Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of
John P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9689232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9689232" class="para"><sup class="para">[175] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9685104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9685104" class="para"><sup class="para">[175] </sup></a>
See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36 (1998): 818 (survey of
compliance literature).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9728288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9728288" class="para"><sup class="para">[176] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9724656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9724656" class="para"><sup class="para">[176] </sup></a>
See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No Snoop
Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is
Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9734432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9734432" class="para"><sup class="para">[177] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9730800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9730800" class="para"><sup class="para">[177] </sup></a>
See <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
Some Methods Used,</span>»</span> CNN.com, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9739040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9739040" class="para"><sup class="para">[178] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9735408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9735408" class="para"><sup class="para">[178] </sup></a>
See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four
gave birth to a hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build
a library of public domain works by scanning these works and making
them available for free.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp977
6016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp977
2240"></a><p>
Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain
works, though even a copy would have been of great value to people
across the world who can't get access to printed versions of these
accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred transformed Hawthorne, and
many others, into a form more accessible—technically
accessible—today.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp977
4112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp977
0384"></a><p>
Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same
source as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed into the
public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
animated cartoons, sometimes successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
(<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure Planet</em>). These are all
commercial publications of public domain works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp97
81472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9782784"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp97
77696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9778944"></a><p>
The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of
public domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally
thousands of others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have
Internet was limited to people with large egos or with political or
social causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of
individuals and groups dedicated to spreading culture
-generally.<a href="#ftn.idp9785408" class="footnote" name="idp9785408"><sup class="footnote">[179]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp97
93824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9794640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9795456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
+generally.<a href="#ftn.idp9781568" class="footnote" name="idp9781568"><sup class="footnote">[179]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp97
89984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9790800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9791616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's
collection of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to
pass into the public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in
would pass into the public domain until that year (and not even then,
if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same period,
more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
801056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9802240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9803568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9804384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
797216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9798400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9799792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9800608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
(CTEA), enacted in memory of the congressman and former musician
Sonny Bono, who, his widow, Mary Bono, says, believed that
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be forever.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9809744" class="footnote" name="idp9809744"><sup class="footnote">[180]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp98
13200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9814576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9815696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9816528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9817360"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be forever.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9805904" class="footnote" name="idp9805904"><sup class="footnote">[180]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp98
09360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9810800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9811920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9812752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9813584"></a><p>
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a
of publishing would make Eldred a felon—whether or not anyone
complained. This was a dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer
to undertake.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp981
8736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp981
4960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
constitutional
scholar whose first passion was constitutional
Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science …
by securing for limited Times to Authors … exclusive Right to
their … Writings. …
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp982
9696"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp982
5936"></a><p>
As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting
clause of Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause
granting power to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do
specific—to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote … Progress</span>»</span>—through means that
are also specific— by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e.,
copyrights) <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp983
4672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9835952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9837216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9838656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp983
0912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9832256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9833520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9834960"></a><p>
In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of
extending existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me
about this was, if Congress has the power to extend existing terms,
Congress has the power to extend its term, then Congress can achieve
what the Constitution plainly forbids—perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the
installment plan,</span>»</span> as Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp98
41552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9842912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9844256"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp98
37856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9839216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9840560"></a><p>
As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember
sitting late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious
consideration of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's
real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House
received the maximum contribution from Disney's political action
committee; in the Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received
- contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp9863904" class="footnote" name="idp9863904"><sup class="footnote">[181]</sup></a>
+ contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp9860208" class="footnote" name="idp9860208"><sup class="footnote">[181]</sup></a>
The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent over
$1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
-than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp9865904" class="footnote" name="idp9865904"><sup class="footnote">[182]</sup></a>
+than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp9862208" class="footnote" name="idp9862208"><sup class="footnote">[182]</sup></a>
Disney is estimated to have
contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in the
-cycle.<a href="#ftn.idp9868016" class="footnote" name="idp9868016"><sup class="footnote">[183]</sup></a>
+cycle.<a href="#ftn.idp9864320" class="footnote" name="idp9864320"><sup class="footnote">[183]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious
constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If
they could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and
again.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp98
72704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9874096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9875360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp98
69008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9870336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9871600"></a><p>
It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court
would not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to
the Supreme Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted
activity, when considered on a national scale, affects interstate
commerce. A Constitution designed to limit Congress's power was
instead interpreted to impose no limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp98
80640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp98
76880"></a><p>
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed
that in <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The government had
argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
position to second-guess Congress.
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments,</span>»</span>
-the Chief Justice wrote.<a href="#ftn.idp9884160" class="footnote" name="idp9884160"><sup class="footnote">[184]</sup></a>
+the Chief Justice wrote.<a href="#ftn.idp9880400" class="footnote" name="idp9880400"><sup class="footnote">[184]</sup></a>
If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to
Congress's power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five years
-later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<a href="#ftn.idp9887408" class="footnote" name="idp9887408"><sup class="footnote">[185]</sup></a>
+later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<a href="#ftn.idp9883648" class="footnote" name="idp9883648"><sup class="footnote">[185]</sup></a>
</p><p>
If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
-Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<a href="#ftn.idp9889648" class="footnote" name="idp9889648"><sup class="footnote">[186]</sup></a>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<a href="#ftn.idp9885888" class="footnote" name="idp9885888"><sup class="footnote">[186]</sup></a>
And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should
yield the conclusion that Congress
its politics struck me as extraordinarily boring. I was not going to
devote my life to teaching constitutional law if these nine Justices
were going to be petty politicians.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp989
5648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9896736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9897856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9898960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp989
1840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9892928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9894048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9895152"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Now let's pause</strong></span> for a moment to
make sure we understand what the argument in
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop
would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a
piracy that affects us all.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
901216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
897408"></a><p>
Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief
before the Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association
-wrote that the public domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9904112" class="footnote" name="idp9904112"><sup class="footnote">[187]</sup></a>
+wrote that the public domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9900304" class="footnote" name="idp9900304"><sup class="footnote">[187]</sup></a>
But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our constitutional
system, our law requires it. Some may not like the Constitution's
requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a pirate's
2 percent of that work has any continuing commercial value. It was the
copyright holders for that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.
But the law and its effect were not limited to that 2 percent. The law
-extended the terms of copyright generally.<a href="#ftn.idp9911168" class="footnote" name="idp9911168"><sup class="footnote">[188]</sup></a>
+extended the terms of copyright generally.<a href="#ftn.idp9907360" class="footnote" name="idp9907360"><sup class="footnote">[188]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Think practically about the consequence of this
wanted to make available to the world in your iArchive project the
remaining
9,873. What would you have to do?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp991
5136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp991
1328"></a><p>
Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were
still under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are
not on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the
digitized, and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the
consequence
for other creative works is much more dire.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp992
5664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9926480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9927296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp992
1936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9922752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9923568"></a><p>
Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios,
which owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a
direct beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were
exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal of
money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
-films.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9929664" class="footnote" name="idp9929664"><sup class="footnote">[189]</sup></a>
+films.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9925936" class="footnote" name="idp9925936"><sup class="footnote">[189]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in
this culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme
high; digital technology has lowered these costs substantially. While
it cost more than $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white
film in 1993, it can now cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of
-8 mm film.<a href="#ftn.idp9934976" class="footnote" name="idp9934976"><sup class="footnote">[190]</sup></a>
+8 mm film.<a href="#ftn.idp9931248" class="footnote" name="idp9931248"><sup class="footnote">[190]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most
would outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old
films, Agee argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until
the copyright expires.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
43008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
39280"></a><p>
But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will
have expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and
nitrate stock dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal
role is to archive culture, whether there's a demand for any
particular bit of that culture or not—then we can't count on the
commercial market to do our library work for us.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
61408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
57696"></a><p>
I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We
should rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable
culture. My message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the
culture, 94 percent of the films, books, and music produced between
1923 and 1946 is not commercially available. However much you love the
commercial market, if access is a value, then 6 percent is a failure
-to provide that value.<a href="#ftn.idp9963824" class="footnote" name="idp9963824"><sup class="footnote">[191]</sup></a>
+to provide that value.<a href="#ftn.idp9960176" class="footnote" name="idp9960176"><sup class="footnote">[191]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit
hear the case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for
important cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a
whole, where the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
72272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
68624"></a><p>
The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.
This time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
been won. It should have been won. And no matter how hard I try to
retell this story to myself, I can never escape believing that my own
mistake lost it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp997
7696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp997
4048"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The mistake</strong></span> was made early, though
it became obvious only at the very end. Our case had been supported
from the very beginning by an extraordinary lawyer, Geoffrey Stewart,
from its copyright-protectionist clients for supporting us. They
ignored this pressure (something that few law firms today would ever
do), and throughout the case, they gave it everything they could.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
80416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9981200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9982016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
76768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9977552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9978368"></a><p>
There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff
Stewart was the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became
quite involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view
the widest range of credible critics—credible not because they
were rich and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated
that this law was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
90752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9991536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp99
87776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9988560"></a><p>
The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's
organization, Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the
very beginning. Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by
existing copyrights, there is no limit to Congress's power to set
terms. That strong conservative argument persuaded a strong
conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp999
4752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9995584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9996400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9997216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp999
1776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9992608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9993424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9994240"></a><p>
In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as
it gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free
exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the world's experts in the
history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there was a new brief
by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp999
9376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10000176"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp999
6400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9997200"></a><p>
Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal
argument, there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and
archives, including the Internet Archive, the American Association of
Law Libraries, and the National Writers Union.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10001648"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9998672"></a><p>
But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the
argument I've already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued
that unless the law was struck, a whole generation of American film
would disappear. The other made the economic argument absolutely
clear.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1000
3136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10003952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10004768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10005584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10006400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1000
0160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10000976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10001792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10002608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10003424"></a><p>
This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including
five Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan,
Milton Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as
anything to increase incentives to create. Such extensions were
nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>—the fancy term economists use
to describe special-interest legislation gone wild.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1000
8544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10009328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10010144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10010960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1000
5568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10006352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10007168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10007984"></a><p>
The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered
to write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with
us from the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we
who had advised us early on about a First Amendment strategy; and
finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1001
3168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10013952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10015072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1001
0192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10010976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10012096"></a><p>
Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give
media companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried
that the copyright holders would defend the idea that they should
continue to have the right to control who did what with content they
wanted to control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1001
8592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10019984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10020800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1001
5616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10017008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10017824"></a><p>
Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was
better for the Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to
Dr. Seuss's work— better than allowing it to fall into the
public domain—because if this creativity were in the public
domain, then people could use it to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create
-pornography.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp10022544" class="footnote" name="idp10022544"><sup class="footnote">[192]</sup></a>
+pornography.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp10019568" class="footnote" name="idp10019568"><sup class="footnote">[192]</sup></a>
That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example,
to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African
-Americans in the cast.<a href="#ftn.idp10025360" class="footnote" name="idp10025360"><sup class="footnote">[193]</sup></a>
+Americans in the cast.<a href="#ftn.idp10022384" class="footnote" name="idp10022384"><sup class="footnote">[193]</sup></a>
That's
their view of how this part of American culture should be controlled,
<span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there
was little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said,
I set the strategy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp100
31152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10031968"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp100
28176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10028992"></a><p>
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we
called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest.</span>»</span> The
Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor,
five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line
of cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to
assure that Congress's powers had limits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1003
4928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1003
1952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
Congress's power. These four—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter,
Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer—had repeatedly argued that
the writings of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this
context to do as it wished, even if what Congress wished made little
sense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1003
9616"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1003
6640"></a><p>
Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly
favored deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were
also very sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly
believed, there was a very important free speech argument against
these retrospective extensions.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp100
41056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp100
38080"></a><p>
The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest
judges on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just
a clear line to follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots
were an effective practice; I found ways to take every question back to
this central idea.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1005
4848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10055664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10056480"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1005
1424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10052240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10053056"></a><p>
One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the
skeptic. He had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor
General Charles Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme
consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see
the harm—passionately get them to see the harm. For if they
don't see that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1005
9200"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1005
5776"></a><p>
He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but
he didn't understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the
right thing—not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
where I intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's
power. This was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether
those enumerated powers had any limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1006
4432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1006
1008"></a><p>
Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.
The history was bothering her.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
assertion about impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a
structural limit necessary to assure that what would be an effectively
perpetual term not be permitted under the copyright laws.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp100
72288"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp100
68864"></a><p>
That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right
answer was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any
number of briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And
but for a statute that cannot be justified under ordinary First
Amendment analysis or under a proper reading of the limits built
into the Copyright Clause.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp1007
7264"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp1007
3840"></a><p>
Things went better for us when the government gave its argument;
for now the Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia
asked Solicitor General Olson,
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case was not even
cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did not
even appear in the Court's opinion.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1008
8272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1008
4848"></a><p>
Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.
recognize that however much I might hate a system in which the Court
gets to pick the constitutional values that it will respect, that is
the system we have.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp100
90336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp100
86912"></a><p>
Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's
opinion was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition
of intellectual property law should not support this unjustified
very same words in the Progress Clause could come to mean totally
different things depending upon whether the words were about patents
or copyrights. The Court let Justice Stevens's charge go unanswered.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1009
4928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1009
1504"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever
written, was external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of
it is a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger
came quickly, but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two
sorts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
101072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
097648"></a><p>
It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have been
one thing for them to have explained why the principle of <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't
apply in this case. That wouldn't have been a very convincing
myself.
For I had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of
the law as it is.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1010
7520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1010
4096"></a><p>
Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for
idealism about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.
Most have a much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this
refused to stand before this audience and try to persuade with the
passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis on which a court
should decide the issue.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
11040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10111824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
07616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10108400"></a><p>
Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it
have been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or
Kathleen Sullivan?
little reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had
stepped down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could
have persuaded.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1011
4576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1011
1152"></a><p>
And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this
<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. ">13.1</a>. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful
and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit unfair. But the punch in the face
felt exactly like that.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10123056"></a>
-</p><div class="figure-float" style="float: left;"><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 13.1. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="100%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/tom-the-dancing-bug.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp1012
6272"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"></div><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10119568"></a>
+</p><div class="figure-float" style="float: left;"><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 13.1. </b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="100%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/tom-the-dancing-bug.png" align="middle" width="100%"></td></tr></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp1012
2784"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"></div><p>
The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the
quote from <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand experiment</span>»</span> we call the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey,
in our Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I
fathered, the Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A
better lawyer would have made them see differently.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9785408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9785408" class="para"><sup class="para">[179] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9781568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9781568" class="para"><sup class="para">[179] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9786144"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9782304"></a>
There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to
describe, but it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet
created was a world of noncommercial pornographers—people who
publishers after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the
world before the Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it
at least as important to protect the Eldreds of the world as to
-protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9809744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9809744" class="para"><sup class="para">[180] </sup></a>
+protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9805904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9805904" class="para"><sup class="para">[180] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9810448"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9811232"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9806608"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9807392"></a>
The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change
would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to
you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last
forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next
Congress,</span>»</span> 144 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9863904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9863904" class="para"><sup class="para">[181] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9860208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9860208" class="para"><sup class="para">[181] </sup></a>
Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9865904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9865904" class="para"><sup class="para">[182] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9862208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9862208" class="para"><sup class="para">[182] </sup></a>
See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
Age,</span>»</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9868016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9868016" class="para"><sup class="para">[183] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9864320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9864320" class="para"><sup class="para">[183] </sup></a>
Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9884160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9884160" class="para"><sup class="para">[184] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9880400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9880400" class="para"><sup class="para">[184] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9887408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9887408" class="para"><sup class="para">[185] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9883648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9883648" class="para"><sup class="para">[185] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9889648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9889648" class="para"><sup class="para">[186] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9885888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9885888" class="para"><sup class="para">[186] </sup></a>
If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle
carries from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in
Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's interpretation would
allow the government unending power to regulate copyrights—the
limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span> notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9904112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9904112" class="para"><sup class="para">[187] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9900304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9900304" class="para"><sup class="para">[187] </sup></a>
Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9911168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9911168" class="para"><sup class="para">[188] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9907360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9907360" class="para"><sup class="para">[188] </sup></a>
The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
Congressional
Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal ranges. See Brief
of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9929664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9929664" class="para"><sup class="para">[189] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9925936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9925936" class="para"><sup class="para">[189] </sup></a>
See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies,
Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Striking
Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9934976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9934976" class="para"><sup class="para">[190] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9931248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9931248" class="para"><sup class="para">[190] </sup></a>
Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae
Supporting the Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537
filed on behalf of Petitioners by the Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9963824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9963824" class="para"><sup class="para">[191] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9960176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9960176" class="para"><sup class="para">[191] </sup></a>
Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>»</span> 20
December 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10022544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10022544" class="para"><sup class="para">[192] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10019568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10019568" class="para"><sup class="para">[192] </sup></a>
Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537
U.S. (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10025360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10025360" class="para"><sup class="para">[193] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10022384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10022384" class="para"><sup class="para">[193] </sup></a>
Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey
Mouse Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March 1998, B7.
long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city from
Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and
wrote an op-ed piece.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1013
4048"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1013
0560"></a><p>
It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head
the same advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is
blocking access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as
Congress allows for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for
everything else, let the content go.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1013
9856"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1013
6368"></a><p>
The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed
it in an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters
expressing support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity,
copyright owners to ask permission to use or license their work. This
system would lower these costs, by establishing at least one registry
where copyright owners could be identified.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
43344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10144160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
39856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10140672"></a><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Chapter Ten: «Property»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were
removed in 1976, when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning
-any formal requirement before a copyright is granted.<a href="#ftn.idp10146720" class="footnote" name="idp10146720"><sup class="footnote">[194]</sup></a>
+any formal requirement before a copyright is granted.<a href="#ftn.idp10143232" class="footnote" name="idp10143232"><sup class="footnote">[194]</sup></a>
The Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span> Natural
rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American
tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if their
a world without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to
know what's protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
52848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
49360"></a><p>
The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in
Berlin in 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne
Convention in 1908, to require copyright terms of life plus fifty
a world without formalities. Complex, expensive,
<span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions take their place.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10162368"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10158928"></a>
</p><p>
This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono
Act that we tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it
upon historical data, that system would move up to 98 percent of
commercial work, commercial work that no longer had a commercial life,
into the public domain within fifty years. What do you think?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
70416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
66976"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>When Steve Forbes</strong></span> endorsed the
idea, some in Washington began to pay attention. Many people contacted
me pointing to representatives who might be willing to introduce the
Eldred Act. And I had a few who directly suggested that they might be
willing to take the first step.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
72576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
69136"></a><p>
One representative, Zoe Lofgren of California, went so far as to get
the bill drafted. The draft solved any problem with international
law. It imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners
possible still to understand why the law favors Hollywood: Most people
don't recognize the reasons for limiting copyright terms; it is thus
still possible to see good faith within the resistance.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
83040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
79600"></a><p>
But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred
Act, then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked
selfinterest driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary
feared the competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public
domain connected to a public that now has the means to create with it
and to share its own creation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
90032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10190816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp101
86592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10187376"></a><p>
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
Causbys and demands that their remote and useless property rights be
society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10146720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10146720" class="para"><sup class="para">[194] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10143232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10143232" class="para"><sup class="para">[194] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10147424"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10143936"></a>
Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of
African nation can afford the drugs for the vast majority of its
population:
$15,000 is thirty times the per capita gross national product of
-Zimbabwe. At these prices, the drugs are totally unavailable.<a href="#ftn.idp10208512" class="footnote" name="idp10208512"><sup class="footnote">[195]</sup></a>
+Zimbabwe. At these prices, the drugs are totally unavailable.<a href="#ftn.idp10205008" class="footnote" name="idp10205008"><sup class="footnote">[195]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsonpharmaceuticals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpharmaceuticalpatents"></a><p>
These prices are not high because the ingredients of the drugs are
example, if the drug was sold in India, it could be imported into
Africa from India. This is called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>»</span> and it is
generally permitted under international trade law and is specifically
-permitted within the European Union.<a href="#ftn.idp10223088" class="footnote" name="idp10223088"><sup class="footnote">[196]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1022
6368"></a><p>
+permitted within the European Union.<a href="#ftn.idp10219584" class="footnote" name="idp10219584"><sup class="footnote">[196]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1022
2864"></a><p>
However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more
than opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
characterized it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa …
not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel
-imports.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9833088" class="footnote" name="idp9833088"><sup class="footnote">[197]</sup></a>
+imports.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9829328" class="footnote" name="idp9829328"><sup class="footnote">[197]</sup></a>
Through the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the
government asked South Africa to change the law—and to add
pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed South Africa for
patent— pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these governments,
with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa respect
these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any
-effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<a href="#ftn.idp10230224" class="footnote" name="idp10230224"><sup class="footnote">[198]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp102
33344"></a><p>
+effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<a href="#ftn.idp10226720" class="footnote" name="idp10226720"><sup class="footnote">[198]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp102
29840"></a><p>
We should place the intervention by the United States in context. No
doubt patents are not the most important reason that Africans don't
have access to drugs. Poverty and the total absence of an effective
information, which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an
argument
-about the sanctity of property.<a href="#ftn.idp10237920" class="footnote" name="idp10237920"><sup class="footnote">[199]</sup></a>
+about the sanctity of property.<a href="#ftn.idp10234480" class="footnote" name="idp10234480"><sup class="footnote">[199]</sup></a>
It was because <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> would be violated that these
drugs should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the
importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> that led these government actors
to intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1024
5232"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1024
1792"></a><p>
Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years
from now when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have
let this happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose
unintended consequence that perhaps millions die. And that rational
strategy thus becomes framed in terms of this ideal—the sanctity of an
idea called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1025
6160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10257408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10258672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10259984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10261360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10262608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10263920"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1025
2704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10253952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10255216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10256528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10257968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10259216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10260464"></a><p>
So when the common sense of your child confronts you, what will
you say? When the common sense of a generation finally revolts
against what we have done, how will we justify what we have done?
in any case. A sensible policy, in other words, could be a balanced
policy. For most of our history, both copyright and patent policies
were balanced in just this sense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1026
7648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10268928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10270272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1026
4192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10265536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10266816"></a><p>
But we as a culture have lost this sense of balance. We have lost the
critical eye that helps us see the difference between truth and
extremism. A certain property fundamentalism, having no connection to
our tradition, now reigns in this culture—bizarrely, and with
consequences more grave to the spread of ideas and culture than almost
any other single policy decision that we as a democracy will make.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp102
71792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp102
68336"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>A simple idea</strong></span> blinds us, and under
the cover of darkness, much happens that most of us would reject if
any of us looked. So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in
hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even
noticed. Powerful lobbies, complex issues, and MTV attention spans
produce the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfect storm</span>»</span> for free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1027
8288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10279104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10281872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10282976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10283808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10284640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10285472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10286576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10287408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10289888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10290704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10291536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1027
4832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10275648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10278464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10279568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10280400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10281232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10282064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10283168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10284000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10286368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10287184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10288016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In August 2003</strong></span>, a fight broke out
in the United States about a decision by the World Intellectual
-Property Organization to cancel a meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp10294896" class="footnote" name="idp10294896"><sup class="footnote">[200]</sup></a>
+Property Organization to cancel a meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp10291488" class="footnote" name="idp10291488"><sup class="footnote">[200]</sup></a>
At the request of a wide range of interests, WIPO had decided to hold
a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
goods.</span>»</span> These are projects that have been successful in producing
Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It
included the Global Positioning System, which Ronald Reagan set free
in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and free software.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1030
4144"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1030
0736"></a><p>
The aim of the meeting was to consider this wide range of projects
from one common perspective: that none of these projects relied upon
intellectual property extremism. Instead, in all of them, intellectual
property was balanced by agreements to keep access open or to impose
limitations on the way in which proprietary claims might be used.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceininternationaldebateonintellectualproperty"></a><p>
-From the perspective of this book, then, the conference was ideal.<a href="#ftn.idp10308432" class="footnote" name="idp10308432"><sup class="footnote">[201]</sup></a>
+From the perspective of this book, then, the conference was ideal.<a href="#ftn.idp10305008" class="footnote" name="idp10305008"><sup class="footnote">[201]</sup></a>
The projects within its scope included both commercial and
noncommercial work. They primarily involved science, but from many
perspectives. And WIPO was an ideal venue for this discussion, since
had thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and should. And
thus the meeting about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create
public goods</span>»</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1031
5856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10317312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10318752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10321744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1031
2448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10313840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10315280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10318224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
But there is one project within that list that is highly
controversial, at least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source
and free software.</span>»</span> Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of
Microsoft's software. And internationally, many governments have begun
to explore requirements that they use open source or free software,
rather than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>»</span> for their own internal uses.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1032
6224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10327328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10328160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10328976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1032
2592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10323696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10324528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10325344"></a><p>
I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to
make clear that the distinction is not between commercial and
noncommercial software. There are many important companies that depend
is emphatically a commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and
free software</span>»</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead,
to support a mode of software development that is different from
-Microsoft's.<a href="#ftn.idp10331424" class="footnote" name="idp10331424"><sup class="footnote">[202]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1033
7152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10338576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10339408"></a><p>
+Microsoft's.<a href="#ftn.idp10327792" class="footnote" name="idp10327792"><sup class="footnote">[202]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1033
3520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10334944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10335776"></a><p>
More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and free
software</span>»</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Open source and free software</span>»</span>
is not software in the public domain. Instead, like Microsoft's
software. If copyright did not govern software, then free software
could not impose the same kind of requirements on its adopters. It
thus depends upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp1034
7872"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp1034
4144"></a><p>
It is therefore understandable that as a proprietary software
developer, Microsoft would oppose this WIPO meeting, and
understandable that it would use its lobbyists to get the United
States government to oppose it, as well. And indeed, that is just what
was reported to have happened. According to Jonathan Krim of the
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, Microsoft's lobbyists succeeded in getting the United
-States government to veto the meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp10350096" class="footnote" name="idp10350096"><sup class="footnote">[203]</sup></a>
+States government to veto the meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp10346368" class="footnote" name="idp10346368"><sup class="footnote">[203]</sup></a>
And without U.S. backing, the meeting was canceled.
</p><p>
I don't blame Microsoft for doing what it can to advance its own
its lobbying here, and nothing terribly surprising about the most
powerful software producer in the United States having succeeded in
its lobbying efforts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp103
53072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10354464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp103
49344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10350736"></a><p>
What was surprising was the United States government's reason for
opposing the meeting. Again, as reported by Krim, Lois Boland, acting
director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark
She is quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose
to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the
goals of WIPO.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1035
6944"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1035
3216"></a><p>
These statements are astonishing on a number of levels.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1035
8640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1035
4912"></a><p>
First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and
free software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property
right called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>. Without it, restrictions imposed by those
in understanding—the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
first-year law student, but an embarrassment from a high government
official dealing with intellectual property issues.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp103
62192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10362896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10364000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10364816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp103
58528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10359232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10360336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10361152"></a><p>
Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote</span>»</span>
intellectual property maximally? As I had been scolded at the
preparatory conference of WSIS, WIPO is to consider not only how best
based on drugs whose patent has expired) contrary to the WIPO mission?
Does the public domain weaken intellectual property? Would it have
been better if the protocols of the Internet had been patented?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1036
7472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1036
3808"></a><p>
Third, even if one believed that the purpose of WIPO was to maximize
intellectual property rights, in our tradition, intellectual property
rights are held by individuals and corporations. They get to decide
control to the free market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control
and concentration. It fought any freedom that might interfere with
that control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp103
80528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10381344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp103
76928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10377744"></a><p>
As Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite relate, this is precisely the
-choice we are now making about intellectual property.<a href="#ftn.idp10382560" class="footnote" name="idp10382560"><sup class="footnote">[204]</sup></a>
+choice we are now making about intellectual property.<a href="#ftn.idp10378960" class="footnote" name="idp10378960"><sup class="footnote">[204]</sup></a>
We will have an information society. That much is certain. Our only
choice now is whether that information society will be
<span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span> or <span class="emphasis"><em>feudal</em></span>. The trend is
toward the feudal.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1038
5840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10387088"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1038
2240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10383552"></a><p>
When this battle broke, I blogged it. A spirited debate within the
comment section ensued. Ms. Boland had a number of supporters who
tried to show why her comments made sense. But there was one comment
that was particularly depressing for me. An anonymous poster wrote,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp1038
9408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10390848"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp1038
5872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10387248"></a><p>
George, you misunderstand Lessig: He's only talking about the world as
it should be (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government,
should be to promote the right balance of intellectual property rights,
mistake. I have no illusion about the extremism of our government,
whether Republican or Democrat. My only illusion apparently is about
whether our government should speak the truth or not.)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1039
5008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1039
1408"></a><p>
Obviously, however, the poster was not supporting that idea. Instead,
the poster was ridiculing the very idea that in the real world, the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">goal</span>»</span> of a government should be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to promote the right balance</span>»</span> of
been part of our tradition for most of our history—free culture.
</p><p>
If this is crazy, then let there be more crazies. Soon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
402160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10402832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10403536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
398560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10399232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10399936"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There are moments</strong></span> of hope in this
struggle. And moments that surprise. When the FCC was considering
relaxing ownership rules, which would thereby further increase the
</p><p>
If we were Achilles, this would be our heel. This would be the place
of our tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp104
12544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp104
08944"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>As I write</strong></span> these final words, the
news is filled with stories about the RIAA lawsuits against almost
-three hundred individuals.<a href="#ftn.idp10414448" class="footnote" name="idp10414448"><sup class="footnote">[205]</sup></a>
+three hundred individuals.<a href="#ftn.idp10410848" class="footnote" name="idp10410848"><sup class="footnote">[205]</sup></a>
Eminem has just been sued for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> someone else's
-music.<a href="#ftn.idp10421760" class="footnote" name="idp10421760"><sup class="footnote">[206]</sup></a>
+music.<a href="#ftn.idp10418160" class="footnote" name="idp10418160"><sup class="footnote">[206]</sup></a>
The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from a Japanese author has just
-finished making the rounds.<a href="#ftn.idp10424384" class="footnote" name="idp10424384"><sup class="footnote">[207]</sup></a>
+finished making the rounds.<a href="#ftn.idp10420784" class="footnote" name="idp10420784"><sup class="footnote">[207]</sup></a>
An insider from Hollywood—who insists he must remain
anonymous—reports <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use
talking about deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers
thought to violate the law. Universities are threatening expulsion for
kids who use a computer to share content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1042
8000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10428784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10429600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10430384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10431200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10432016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10432832"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1042
4400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10425184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10426000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10426784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10427600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10428416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10429232"></a><p>
Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced
that it will build a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>»</span> from which British citizens can
-download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<a href="#ftn.idp10434736" class="footnote" name="idp10434736"><sup class="footnote">[208]</sup></a>
+download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<a href="#ftn.idp10431088" class="footnote" name="idp10431088"><sup class="footnote">[208]</sup></a>
And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil, himself a folk hero
of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to release
content and free licenses in that Latin American
-country.<a href="#ftn.idp10436992" class="footnote" name="idp10436992"><sup class="footnote">[209]</sup></a>
+country.<a href="#ftn.idp10433344" class="footnote" name="idp10433344"><sup class="footnote">[209]</sup></a>
I've told a dark story. The truth is more mixed. A technology has
given us a new freedom. Slowly, some begin to understand that this
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10208512" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10208512" class="para"><sup class="para">[195] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10205008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10205008" class="para"><sup class="para">[195] </sup></a>
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
available at
release
issued 9 July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in
the developing world receive them—and half of them are in Brazil.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10223088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10223088" class="para"><sup class="para">[196] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10219584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10219584" class="para"><sup class="para">[196] </sup></a>
See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism: Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003), 37.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10224512"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10225296"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9833088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9833088" class="para"><sup class="para">[197] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10221008"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10221792"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9829328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9829328" class="para"><sup class="para">[197] </sup></a>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan
Resources, House Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess.,
Ser. No. 106-126 (22 July 1999), 150–57 (statement of James
Love).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10230224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10230224" class="para"><sup class="para">[198] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10226720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10226720" class="para"><sup class="para">[198] </sup></a>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan
Africa, a Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property
-Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp10237920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10237920" class="para"><sup class="para">[199] </sup></a>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp10234480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10234480" class="para"><sup class="para">[199] </sup></a>
See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10294896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10294896" class="para"><sup class="para">[200] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10291488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10291488" class="para"><sup class="para">[200] </sup></a>
Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>,
August 2003, E1, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's
Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology
Daily</em>, 19 August 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10308432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10308432" class="para"><sup class="para">[201] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10305008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10305008" class="para"><sup class="para">[201] </sup></a>
I should disclose that I was one of the people who asked WIPO for the
meeting.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10331424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10331424" class="para"><sup class="para">[202] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10327792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10327792" class="para"><sup class="para">[202] </sup></a>
Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
sophisticated. As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with
Model</em>, discussion at New York University Stern School of Business (3
May 2001), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10350096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10350096" class="para"><sup class="para">[203] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10346368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10346368" class="para"><sup class="para">[203] </sup></a>
Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10382560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10382560" class="para"><sup class="para">[204] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10378960" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10378960" class="para"><sup class="para">[204] </sup></a>
See Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>, 210–20.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10230352"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10414448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10414448" class="para"><sup class="para">[205] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10226848"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10410848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10410848" class="para"><sup class="para">[205] </sup></a>
John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>»</span> CNET News.com, September
2003, available at
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>, 10 September 2003,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10421760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10421760" class="para"><sup class="para">[206] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10418160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10418160" class="para"><sup class="para">[206] </sup></a>
Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old Lady,</span>»</span>
mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10424384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10424384" class="para"><sup class="para">[207] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10420784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10420784" class="para"><sup class="para">[207] </sup></a>
Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
Dylan Songs,</span>»</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10434736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10434736" class="para"><sup class="para">[208] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10431088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10431088" class="para"><sup class="para">[208] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>»</span> BBC press release,
24 August 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10436992" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10436992" class="para"><sup class="para">[209] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10433344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10433344" class="para"><sup class="para">[209] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>»</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6 August 2003,
available at
content requires permission. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> world that defines
the Internet today will become a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span>
world that is a creator's nightmare.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp104
60560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10461952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp104
56896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10458224"></a><p>
What's needed is a way to say something in the middle—neither
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights
reserved</span>»</span>— and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable
(there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in many
places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp1047
7584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp1047
3920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></a><p>
Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular
has become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you
browse the pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked
and the function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the
data than not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
protected by the friction disappears, too.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp104
82048"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp104
78384"></a><p>
Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry
about libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that
people should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
you. If it becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in
electronic spaces, then the friction-induced privacy of yesterday
disappears.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1048
4432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10485744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1048
0768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10482080"></a><p>
It is this reality that explains the push of many to define <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
on the Internet. It is the recognition that technology can remove what
friction before gave us that leads many to push for laws to do what
-friction did.<a href="#ftn.idp10487984" class="footnote" name="idp10487984"><sup class="footnote">[210]</sup></a>
+friction did.<a href="#ftn.idp10484320" class="footnote" name="idp10484320"><sup class="footnote">[210]</sup></a>
And whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern
that is important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a
kind of freedom that was passively provided before. A change in
technology now forces those who believe in privacy to affirmatively
act where, before, privacy was given by default.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp104
92000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10493216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10494608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10495424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp104
88336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10489616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10491008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10491824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
movement. When computers with software were first made available
commercially, the software—both the source code and the
economics of computing. And as he believed, if he did nothing about
it, then the freedom to change and share software would be
fundamentally weakened.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1050
5312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10506544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1050
1760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10502992"></a><p>
Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating
system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That
was the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>
kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating system.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10508336"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10509168"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10504784"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10505616"></a>
</p><p>
Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of
software that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free
that bind copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a
space where free software would survive. He was actively protecting
what before had been passively guaranteed.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp105
11840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10513232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp105
08288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10509680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates
with the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and
scientific journals are produced.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp105
21424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10522528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp105
18128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10519232"></a><p>
As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them
to libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
to charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme
Court opinion through their respective services.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1052
5184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1052
1888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive
for people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.
to flourish. And if there's nothing wrong with selling the public
domain, then there could be nothing wrong, in principle, with selling
access to material that is not in the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1052
9136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10530384"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1052
5728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10526976"></a><p>
But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data
was through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to
browse this data except by paying for a subscription?
public libraries begin to disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with
software, a changing technology and market shrink a freedom taken for
granted before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1053
6032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10536832"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1053
2624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10533424"></a><p>
This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to
restore the freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science
(PLoS), for example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making
available for free. PLoS also sells a print version of its work, but
the copyright for the print journal does not inhibit the right of
anyone to redistribute the work for free.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1053
9056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1053
5648"></a><p>
This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for
granted before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.
There's no doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional
distribution of content. But competition in our tradition is
presumptively a good—especially when it helps spread knowledge
and science.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp105
40592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10542576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10543824"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>1.2. Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp105
37120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10539104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10540352"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>1.2. Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the
increasing control effected through law and technology.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1054
8416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1054
4896"></a><p>
Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit
corporation established in Massachusetts, but with its home at
Stanford University. Its aim is to build a layer of
upon. Voluntary choice of individuals and creators will make this
content available. And that content will in turn enable us to rebuild
a public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1055
5888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1055
2368"></a><p>
This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And
of course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from
of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)
who help build the public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the
importance of the public domain to other creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1055
8352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1055
4896"></a><p>
The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The aim is to
complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture
are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
conclusion. The book's first printing was exhausted months before the
publisher had expected. This first novel of a science fiction author
was a total success.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1056
5664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10566480"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1056
2208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10563024"></a><p>
The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content
was confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner,
used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as
well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1056
8928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10570240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10571056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10571872"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1056
5472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10566784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10567600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10568416"></a><p>
These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the
Commons. There are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other
Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span>
Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so
-high<a href="#ftn.idp10575088" class="footnote" name="idp10575088"><sup class="footnote">[211]</sup></a>),
+high<a href="#ftn.idp10571632" class="footnote" name="idp10571632"><sup class="footnote">[211]</sup></a>),
these artists release into the creative environment content
that others can build upon, so that their form of creativity might grow.
</p><p>
make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights more
flexibly and cheaply. That difference, we believe, will enable
creativity to spread more easily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp105
82064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10583472"></a></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>2. Them, soon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp105
78608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10580016"></a></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>2. Them, soon</h2></div></div></div><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> not reclaim a free culture
by individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of
laws. We have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to
past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span> of formalities forces
many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
</p><p>
-The law should therefore change this requirement<a href="#ftn.idp10596160" class="footnote" name="idp10596160"><sup class="footnote">[212]</sup></a>—but it
+The law should therefore change this requirement<a href="#ftn.idp10592608" class="footnote" name="idp10592608"><sup class="footnote">[212]</sup></a>—but it
should not change it by going back to the old, broken system. We
should require formalities, but we should establish a system that will
create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
failure need not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could
instead be that anyone has the right to use this work, until the
copyright owner complains and demonstrates that it is his work and he
-doesn't give permission.<a href="#ftn.idp10607472" class="footnote" name="idp10607472"><sup class="footnote">[213]</sup></a>
+doesn't give permission.<a href="#ftn.idp10603872" class="footnote" name="idp10603872"><sup class="footnote">[213]</sup></a>
The meaning of an unmarked work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone
complains.</span>»</span> If someone does complain, then the obligation would be to
stop using the work in any new
evolve. The best way to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the
Copyright Office's role to that of approving standards for marking
content that have been crafted elsewhere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp106
11456"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp106
07856"></a><p>
For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The
Copyright Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could
five years. That seemed radical enough at the time. But after we lost
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a fourteen-year
-copyright term.<a href="#ftn.idp10620672" class="footnote" name="idp10620672"><sup class="footnote">[214]</sup></a>
+copyright term.<a href="#ftn.idp10617024" class="footnote" name="idp10617024"><sup class="footnote">[214]</sup></a>
Others have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
</p><p>
I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone</span>»</span> makes the complexities of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> and
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>»</span> less necessary to navigate.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp106
31552"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp106
27904"></a><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be
renewed. Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner
continued. This need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason
this monopoly protection has to be granted for free. On average, it
takes ninety minutes for a veteran to apply for a
-pension.<a href="#ftn.idp10633712" class="footnote" name="idp10633712"><sup class="footnote">[215]</sup></a>
+pension.<a href="#ftn.idp10630064" class="footnote" name="idp10630064"><sup class="footnote">[215]</sup></a>
If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't
require authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a
single form.
call them <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extremists.</span>»</span>) But again, the term I recommended was longer
than the term under Richard Nixon. How <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radical</span>»</span> can it be to ask for
a more generous copyright law than Richard Nixon presided over?
-</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>2.3. 3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp106
43360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10644160"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>2.3. 3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp106
38848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10639648"></a><p>
As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally
granted property owners the right to control their property from the
ground to the heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property
work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even
though that movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1064
8544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1064
4032"></a><p>
Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it
expanded the exclusive right of copyright to include a right to
-control translations and dramatizations of a work.<a href="#ftn.idp10649808" class="footnote" name="idp10649808"><sup class="footnote">[216]</sup></a>
+control translations and dramatizations of a work.<a href="#ftn.idp10645296" class="footnote" name="idp10645296"><sup class="footnote">[216]</sup></a>
The courts have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation
ever since. This expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's
greatest judges, Judge Benjamin Kaplan.
So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a
large range of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense
the oddity of accepting such an enlargement of copyright while
-yet intoning the abracadabra of idea and expression.<a href="#ftn.idp10652256" class="footnote" name="idp10652256"><sup class="footnote">[217]</sup></a>
+yet intoning the abracadabra of idea and expression.<a href="#ftn.idp10647744" class="footnote" name="idp10647744"><sup class="footnote">[217]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
after the creative work is done.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10655568"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10651056"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative
rights be narrowed. Again, there are some cases in which derivative
technologies enable; now imagine pouring molasses into the
machines. That's what this general requirement of permission does to
the creative process. Smothers it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1065
8400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1065
3888"></a><p>
This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the
Clint Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for
foreseeable derivative rights—turning a book into a movie, or a
In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are
protected, and the presumption should be that other uses are not
protected. This is the reverse of the recommendation of my colleague
-Paul Goldstein.<a href="#ftn.idp10660528" class="footnote" name="idp10660528"><sup class="footnote">[218]</sup></a>
+Paul Goldstein.<a href="#ftn.idp10656016" class="footnote" name="idp10656016"><sup class="footnote">[218]</sup></a>
His view is that the law should be written so that
expanded protections follow expanded uses.
</p><p>
There are many who are using file-sharing networks to get access to
content that is not copyrighted or to get access that the copyright
owner plainly endorses.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp1067
5472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10676544"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp1067
1136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10672208"></a><p>
Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It
must avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The
eagerness with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover,
Rockies—you can instantaneously be connected to the
Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone
service, where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp106
82112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp106
77776"></a><p>
In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that
give you access to content on the fly—such as Internet radio,
content that is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here,
cell-phone services in Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over
cell phones (enhanced with plugs for headphones). The Japanese are
paying for this content even though <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the
-form of MP3s across the Web.<a href="#ftn.idp10687104" class="footnote" name="idp10687104"><sup class="footnote">[219]</sup></a>
+form of MP3s across the Web.<a href="#ftn.idp10682768" class="footnote" name="idp10682768"><sup class="footnote">[219]</sup></a>
</p><p>
This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
unavailable because the work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the
law should be to facilitate the access to this content, ideally in a
way that returns something to the artist.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1069
4720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10695824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1069
0384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10691488"></a><p>
Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of
print, it may still be available in libraries and used book
stores. But libraries and used book stores don't pay the copyright
way to compensate those who are harmed.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpromisestokeepfisher"></a><p>
The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been
-floated by Harvard law professor William Fisher.<a href="#ftn.idp10706896" class="footnote" name="idp10706896"><sup class="footnote">[220]</sup></a>
+floated by Harvard law professor William Fisher.<a href="#ftn.idp10702560" class="footnote" name="idp10702560"><sup class="footnote">[220]</sup></a>
Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission
would (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how
system, then it can be continued. If this form of protection is no
longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the old system of
controlling access.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1072
8016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10729264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1072
3632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10724944"></a><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim
is not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that
the system supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span>
uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was
allowed to do with the content itself.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp107
32064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10732848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10733664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10734480"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp107
27744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10728528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10729344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10730160"></a><p>
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation
would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating innovation. This
Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no doubt
there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
on-line.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1073
7632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10738448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10739552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10740384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10741488"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1073
3312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10734128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10735232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10736064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10737168"></a><p>
This competition has already occurred against the background of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span>
music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable television have known
for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for much more than
client. And in a world where the rich clients have one strong view,
the unwillingness of the profession to question or counter that one
strong view queers the law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1075
9248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10760064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1075
4944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10755760"></a><p>
The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radical</span>»</span> by many within the profession, yet the positions that I am
advocating are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate
law. Many, for example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to
the Copyright Term Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the
dominant scholar and practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville
-Nimmer, thought it obvious.<a href="#ftn.idp10762400" class="footnote" name="idp10762400"><sup class="footnote">[221]</sup></a>
+Nimmer, thought it obvious.<a href="#ftn.idp10758096" class="footnote" name="idp10758096"><sup class="footnote">[221]</sup></a>
</p><p>
However, my criticism of the role that lawyers have played in this
Economists are supposed to be good at reckoning costs and benefits.
But more often than not, economists, with no clue about how the legal
system actually functions, simply assume that the transaction costs of
-the legal system are slight.<a href="#ftn.idp10765520" class="footnote" name="idp10765520"><sup class="footnote">[222]</sup></a>
+the legal system are slight.<a href="#ftn.idp10761216" class="footnote" name="idp10761216"><sup class="footnote">[222]</sup></a>
They see a system that has been around for hundreds of years, and they
assume it works the way their elementary school civics class taught
them it works.
away from areas that we know it will only harm. And that is precisely
what the law will too often do if too much of our culture is left to
its review.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp107
74224"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp107
69920"></a><p>
Think about the amazing things your kid could do or make with digital
technology—the film, the music, the Web page, the blog. Or think
about the amazing things your community could facilitate with digital
We should ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why?</span>»</span> Show me why your regulation of culture is
needed. Show me how it does good. And until you can show me both,
keep your lawyers away.
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10487984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10487984" class="para"><sup class="para">[210] </sup></a>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10484320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10484320" class="para"><sup class="para">[210] </sup></a>
See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
(describing examples in which technology defines privacy policy). See
also Jeffrey Rosen, <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom
in an Anxious Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs
-between technology and privacy).</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10575088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10575088" class="para"><sup class="para">[211] </sup></a>
+between technology and privacy).</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10571632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10571632" class="para"><sup class="para">[211] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10596160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10596160" class="para"><sup class="para">[212] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10592608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10592608" class="para"><sup class="para">[212] </sup></a>
The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be
-adopted by other countries as well.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10607472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10607472" class="para"><sup class="para">[213] </sup></a>
+adopted by other countries as well.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10603872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10603872" class="para"><sup class="para">[213] </sup></a>
There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not
solved here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated
system than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10620672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10620672" class="para"><sup class="para">[214] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10617024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10617024" class="para"><sup class="para">[214] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308 (25 January 2003): 15,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10633712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10633712" class="para"><sup class="para">[215] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10630064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10630064" class="para"><sup class="para">[215] </sup></a>
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001),
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10649808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10649808" class="para"><sup class="para">[216] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10645296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10645296" class="para"><sup class="para">[216] </sup></a>
Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1967), 32.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10652256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10652256" class="para"><sup class="para">[217] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10647744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10647744" class="para"><sup class="para">[217] </sup></a>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10660528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10660528" class="para"><sup class="para">[218] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10656016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10656016" class="para"><sup class="para">[218] </sup></a>
Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial
Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 187–216.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10489680"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10687104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10687104" class="para"><sup class="para">[219] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10486016"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10682768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10682768" class="para"><sup class="para">[219] </sup></a>
See, for example, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>»</span> The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3
April 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10706896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10706896" class="para"><sup class="para">[220] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10702560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10702560" class="para"><sup class="para">[220] </sup></a>
<a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a>
William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (last
popular. As is typical with Stallman, his proposal predates the current
debate by about a decade. See
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10721776"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10722592"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10723408"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10724240"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10762400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10762400" class="para"><sup class="para">[221] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10717392"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10718208"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10719024"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10719856"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10758096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10758096" class="para"><sup class="para">[221] </sup></a>
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville B. Nimmer
Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48 (2001): 1057, 1069–70.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10765520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10765520" class="para"><sup class="para">[222] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10761216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10761216" class="para"><sup class="para">[222] </sup></a>
A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is
to be commended for his careful review of data about infringement,
effect of file-sharing technology. In my view, however, he
underestimates the costs of the legal system. See, for example,
<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10764080"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10759776"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Chapter . Notes</h1></div></div></div><p>
Throughout this text, there are references to links on the World Wide
Web. As anyone who has tried to use the Web knows, these links can be
highly unstable. I have tried to remedy the instability by redirecting
readers to the original source through the Web site associated with
this book. For each link below, you can go to
-http://free-culture.cc/notes and locate the original source by
-clicking on the number after the # sign. If the original link remains
-alive, you will be redirected to that link. If the original link has
-disappeared, you will be redirected to an appropriate reference for
-the material.
-</p></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Chapter . Acknowledgments</h1></div></div></div><p>
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes" target="_top">http://free-culture.cc/notes</a>
+and locate the original source by clicking on the number after the #
+sign. If the original link remains alive, you will be redirected to
+that link. If the original link has disappeared, you will be
+redirected to an appropriate reference for the material.
+</p><
div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="idp10778304"></a>Index</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Marking</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>copyright</dt><dd><dl><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property</dt><dd><dl><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity</dt><dd><dl><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7971152">«Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7971152">«Property»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Chapter . Acknowledgments</h1></div></div></div><p>
This book is the product of a long and as yet unsuccessful struggle that
began when I read of Eric Eldred's war to keep books free. Eldred's
work helped launch a movement, the free culture movement, and it is
to him that this book is dedicated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1078
4864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1078
1216"></a><p>
I received guidance in various places from friends and academics,
including Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner,
Mark Rose, and Kathleen Sullivan. And I received correction and
insisted that there would be unending happiness away from these
battles, and who has always been right. This slow learner is, as ever,
grateful for her perpetual patience and love.
-</p></div><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp107
93056"></a>Index</h1></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Marking</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>copyright</dt><dd><dl><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property</dt><dd><dl><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity</dt><dd><dl><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp8002320">«Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp8002320">«Property»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7048096">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div><div class="colophon"><h1 class="title"><a name="idp10793312"></a></h1><p>
+</p></div><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp107
89408"></a>Index</h1></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Chapter Twelve: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Marking</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>copyright</dt><dd><dl><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property</dt><dd><dl><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity</dt><dd><dl><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Us, now</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7971152">«Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Chapter Fourteen: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Chapter Four: «Pirates»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7971152">«Property»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Preface</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Chapter Eight: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Chapter Thirteen: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Chapter Three: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Chapter Six: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Chapter Seven: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Chapter Ten: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Chapter Eleven: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Chapter Nine: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Chapter One: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Conclusion</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduction</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Chapter Two: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7024208">«Piracy»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div><div class="colophon"><h1 class="title"><a name="idp10789664"></a></h1><p>
Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down
culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
</p><p>
</p><p>
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/" target="_top">http://free-culture.cc/</a>
</p><p>
-This book is licensed under a Creative Commons license. This license
-permits non-commercial use of this work, so long as attribution is
-given. For more information about the license visit
-<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
+Published in English and Norwegian Bokmål 2015 by Petter Reinholdtsen
+with help from many volunteers. Typeset using dblatex with Crimson
+Text.
</p><p>
-Published 2015 by Petter Reinholdtsen in his spare time. First
-published 2004 by The Penguin Press. Thomas Gramstad Forlag donated
-the ISBN numbers.
+First published 2004 by The Penguin Press.
</p><p>
Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January
</p><p>
Includes index.
</p><p>
-Classifications: (Dewey)
-306.4
-306.40973
-306.46
-341.7582
-343.7309/9,
+Classifications:
+</p><p>
+(Dewey)
+306.4,
+306.40973,
+306.46,
+341.7582,
+343.7309/9
+</p><p>
(UDK) 347.78
-(US Lib. of Congress) KF2979.L47 2004
+</p><p>
+(US Library of Congress) KF2979.L47 2004
+</p><p>
(ACM CRCS) K.4.1
</p><p>
-The book source is in DocBook notation and the other formats are
-derived from this. The source is based on a version from Hans Schou.
-Typeset using Crimson Text and formatted using dblatex. Many thanks
-to the dblatex developer Benoît Guillon for his help. The source is
-available from
+Thomas Gramstad Forlag donated the ISBN numbers.
+</p><p>
+The Docbook source is available from
<a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig</a>.
-Please report any problems using the GitHub issue tracker.
+Please report any issues with the book there.
</p><p>
-
+This book is licensed under a Creative Commons license. This license
+permits non-commercial use of this work, so long as attribution is
+given. For more information about the license visit
+<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>.
</p><p>
-</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="isbn"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">ISBN</th><th align="left">Format / MIME-type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">978-82-8067-010-6</td><td align="left">
Printed copy from Lulu</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-8067-011-3</td><td align="left">application/pdf</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-8067-012-0</td><td align="left">application/epub+zip</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-8067-013-7</td><td align="left">application/x-mobipocket-ebook</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="isbn"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">ISBN</th><th align="left">Format / MIME-type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">978-82-8067-010-6</td><td align="left">
Digest size from lulu.com</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-8067-011-3</td><td align="left">application/pdf</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-8067-012-0</td><td align="left">application/epub+zip</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-8067-013-7</td><td align="left">application/x-mobipocket-ebook</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
</p></div></div></body></html>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff