-<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.75.2"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut
av The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's "e.biz 25," og omtalt som en av Scientific American's "50 visjonærer". Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store mediaaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
-og kontrollere kreativiteten</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">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id27
21571"></a><p>
-Denne versjonen av Fri Kultur er lisensert med en Creative Commons-lisens.
-Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell utnyttelse av verket, hvis
-opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt. For mer informasjon om lisensen, klikk på
-ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
+<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.75.2"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's "e.biz 25," og omtalt som en av Scientific American's "50 visjonærer". Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store mediaaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
+og kontrollere kreativiteten</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">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id27
15811"></a><p>
+Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensert med en
+Creative Commons-lisens. Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
+utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt. For mer
+i
nformasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <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" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org/" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor i
juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law
School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og
styreleder i Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
-Forfatteren har gitt ut av The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code:
+Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code:
And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i
Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public
Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the
utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law
School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.
- </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication" title="Dedikasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
721295"></a>Dedikasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+ </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication" title="Dedikasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
673752"></a>Dedikasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
Til Eric Eldred — hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
hvem saken fortsetter.
</p><p>
</p></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">1. Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-piracy">2. "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-property">3. "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-puzzles">4. Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-balances">5. Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-conclusion">6. Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-afterword">7. Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbyggeing av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">8. Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">9. Takk til</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-figures"><p><b>Figuroversikt</b></p><dl><dt>1. <a href="#CreativeCommons">Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert</a></dt><dt>3.1. <a href="#fig-1331">How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
the right or regulation.</a></dt><dt>3.2. <a href="#fig-1361">Law has a special role in affecting the three.</a></dt><dt>3.3. <a href="#fig-1371">Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</a></dt><dt>3.4. <a href="#fig-1381">effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</a></dt><dt>3.5. <a href="#fig-1441">Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</a></dt><dt>3.6. <a href="#fig-1442">"Opphavsrett" i dag.</a></dt><dt>3.7. <a href="#fig-1521">Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</a></dt><dt>3.8. <a href="#fig-1531">Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</a></dt><dt>3.9. <a href="#fig-1541">Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
copyrighted work.</a></dt><dt>3.10. <a href="#fig-1542">Unregulated copying considered "fair uses."</a></dt><dt>3.11. <a href="#fig-1551">Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
-regulated.</a></dt><dt>3.12. <a href="#fig-1611">Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</a></dt><dt>3.13. <a href="#fig-1612">List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</a></dt><dt>3.14. <a href="#fig-1621">E-book of Aristotle;s "Politics"</a></dt><dt>3.15. <a href="#fig-1622">Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politics".</a></dt><dt>3.16. <a href="#fig-1631">List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</a></dt><dt>3.17. <a href="#fig-1641">List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</a></dt><dt>3.18. <a href="#fig-1711">VCR/handgun cartoon.</a></dt><dt>3.19. <a href="#fig-1761">Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</a></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-tables"><p><b>tabelloversikt</b></p><dl><dt>2.1. <a href="#t1">Tabell</a></dt><dt>3.1. <a href="#t2"></a></dt><dt>3.2. <a href="#t3"></a></dt><dt>3.3. <a href="#t4"></a></dt><dt>3.4. <a href="#t5"></a></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id27
63591"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
+regulated.</a></dt><dt>3.12. <a href="#fig-1611">Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</a></dt><dt>3.13. <a href="#fig-1612">List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</a></dt><dt>3.14. <a href="#fig-1621">E-book of Aristotle;s "Politics"</a></dt><dt>3.15. <a href="#fig-1622">Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politics".</a></dt><dt>3.16. <a href="#fig-1631">List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</a></dt><dt>3.17. <a href="#fig-1641">List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</a></dt><dt>3.18. <a href="#fig-1711">VCR/handgun cartoon.</a></dt><dt>3.19. <a href="#fig-1761">Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</a></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-tables"><p><b>tabelloversikt</b></p><dl><dt>2.1. <a href="#t1">Tabell</a></dt><dt>3.1. <a href="#t2"></a></dt><dt>3.2. <a href="#t3"></a></dt><dt>3.3. <a href="#t4"></a></dt><dt>3.4. <a href="#t5"></a></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id27
14245"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
Du kan kjøpe en kopi av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene nedenfor:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div><p>
Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
</p><p>
Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig. Alle rettigheter reservert.
</p><p>
-Excerpt from an editorial titled "The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity," The
-New York Times, January 16, 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York
-Times Co. Reprinted with permission.
+Excerpt from an editorial titled "The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity,"
+<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16, 2003. Copyright
+© 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with permission.
</p><p>
Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 3.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 3.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.”</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
</p></div><div class="preface" title="Forord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
datarelaterte tekster, skrev dette på slutten av hans gjennomgang av min
-første bok, Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace:
+første bok, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
kapasiteten til å straffe. Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace gikk dårlig,
så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og komme hjem
igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle problemer som
-finnes der ville ikke "påvirke" oss mer.
+finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke "påvirke" oss mer.
</p><p>
Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 — jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
-hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig nå. Fri
-Kultur er om problemene internett forårsaker selv etter at modemet er slått
-av. Den er et argument om hvordan slagene som nå brer om seg i livet
-on-line har fundamentalt påvirket "folk som er ikke pålogget." Det finnes
-ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra internettets effekt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2722074"></a><p>
-Men i motsetning til i boken Code, er argumentet her ikke så mye om
-internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av internett for en del
-av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og uansett hvor hardt dette
-er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
+hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
+nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
+selv etter at modemet er slått av. Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
+som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket "folk som er
+ikke pålogget." Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
+internettets effekt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2673271"></a><p>
+Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
+ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
+internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
+uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
</p><p>
Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på. Som jeg vil forklare i
sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av "fri kultur"—ikke
"fri" som i "fri bar" (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
-programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2722059" href="#ftn.id2722059" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men "fri" som i
+programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2673253" href="#ftn.id2673253" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men "fri" som i
"talefrihet", "fritt marked", "frihandel", "fri konkurranse", "fri vilje" og
"frie valg". En fri kultur støtter og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.
Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele immaterielle rettigheter. Men det gjør
den indirekte ved å begrense rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å
-garantere at neste generasjon skapere og oppfinnere er så fri som mulig fra
-kontroll fra fortiden. En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
-lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis. Det motsatte av
-fri kultur er "tillatelseskultur"—en kultur der skapere kun kan skape
-med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra fortiden.
+garantere at neste generasjon skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri
+som mulig</em></span> fra kontroll fra fortiden. En fri kultur er ikke en
+kultur uten eierskap, like lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er
+gratis. Det motsatte av fri kultur er "tillatelseskultur"—en kultur
+der skapere kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne
+fra fortiden.
</p><p>
Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den. Ikke
"vi" på venstresiden eller "dere" på høyresiden, men vi som ikke har
ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi deg problemer. For
endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider av vår politiske
kultur anser som grunnleggende.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
722142"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
673974"></a><p>
Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
begrensningene rundt mediakonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
konservative Ted Stevens", formulerte han kanskje det enkleste uttrykket
for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han:
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2720576"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2673993"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut? Ikke for meg. Denne konsentrasjonen av
makt—politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt—bør være
bannlyst av konservative. Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
-og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2720599" href="#ftn.id2720599" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2674016" href="#ftn.id2674016" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til Fri Kultur, selv om min fokus
-ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i
-eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen
-av makt som er resultat av en radikal endring i det effektive virkeområdet
-til loven. Loven er i endring, og endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur
-blir skapt. Den endringen bør bekymre deg—Uansett om du bryr deg om
-internett eller ikke, og uansett om du er til venstre for Safires eller til
-høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer
-fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da
-jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på nytt, spesielt essyene i Free Software,
-Free Society, innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her
-er innsikter som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden. Man kan dermed godt
-argumentere for at dette verket kun er et avledet verk.
+Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
+Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
+makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
+er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
+endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven. Loven er i endring, og
+endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
+bekymre deg—Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
+om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
+og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
+og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
+nytt, spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
+innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
+som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden. Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
+dette verket kun er et avledet verk.
</p><p>
Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk. Arbeidet til en advokat
frykter om vår kultur i dag. Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
denne boken er skrevet.
</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.preface01" href="#preface01" class="para">1</a>] </sup>
-David Pogue, "Don't Just Chat, Do Something," New York Times, 30. januar
-2000
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2722059" href="#id2722059" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
-Richard M. Stallman, Fri programvare, Frie samfunn 57 (Joshua Gay,
-red. 2002).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2720599" href="#id2720599" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, "The Great Media Gulp," New York Times, 22. mai 2003.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2720604"></a>
+David Pogue, "Don't Just Chat, Do Something," <em class="citetitle">New York
+Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2673253" href="#id2673253" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
+Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
+(Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2674016" href="#id2674016" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, "The Great Media Gulp," <em class="citetitle">New York
+Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="id2674023"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 1. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
-bakken, "i ubestemt grad, oppover".<sup>[<a name="id2722197" href="#ftn.id2722197" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I
+bakken, "i ubestemt grad, oppover".<sup>[<a name="id2674179" href="#ftn.id2674179" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I
mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om at
eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom? Har jeg mulighet til å
inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines? Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
722215"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2722240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
674199"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2674225"></a><p>
I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
strakk seg "i ubestemt grad, oppover," så hadde regjeringen trengt seg inn
på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for dette.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
722260"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2722267"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
674245"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2674252"></a><p>
Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
strid med sunn fornuft. Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
-eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2722306" href="#ftn.id2722306" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2674291" href="#ftn.id2674291" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
"Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft."
</p><p>
lovpraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til aktuelle
teknologiene. Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den. Idéer som var
solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id272
2405"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2722412"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id272
6934"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2726940"></a><p>
Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
av endringen. Causbyene var bare bønder. Og selv om det uten tvil var
mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831. Men han hadde like god intuisjon om
hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre anledninger, fant Armstrong opp
svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2722351"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2722360"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2722367"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2727003"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2727011"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2727018"></a>
</p><p>
Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde
hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. . . . Sousa-marsjer
ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
utført. . . . Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
-noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en radio-"musikk-boks".<sup>[<a name="id2773536" href="#ftn.id2773536" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
+noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en radio-"musikk-boks".<sup>[<a name="id2727082" href="#ftn.id2727082" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
støy fra "radio.". Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin oppfinnelse, var ikke
-Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2773573"></a>
+Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2672498"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon —
-starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2773484" href="#ftn.id2773484" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2727030" href="#ftn.id2727030" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2773613"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2672540"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger . . . en komplett endring i
maktforholdene rundt radio . . . og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
-makt.<sup>[<a name="id2773636" href="#ftn.id2773636" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
+makt.<sup>[<a name="id2672564" href="#ftn.id2672564" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
-var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2773652" href="#ftn.id2773652" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
773691"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2672580" href="#ftn.id2672580" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
672595"></a><p>
For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv. I følge the Pew
Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år
-tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2773771" href="#ftn.id2773771" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
+tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2727462" href="#ftn.id2727462" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
</p><p>
Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet. I starten forsiktig, etter
hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
-eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2773865" href="#ftn.id2773865" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2727556" href="#ftn.id2727556" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
USA. Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon. Det var i
stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
</p><p>
Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
-fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2773902" href="#ftn.id2773902" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
+fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2727593" href="#ftn.id2727593" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
påvirket det. For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
"piratvirksomhet" vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt "eiendomsretten" vil bli
beskyttet. "Krigen" som har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til
internettet—det presidenten for Motion Picture Association of America
-(MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin "egen terroristkrig"<sup>[<a name="id2774021" href="#ftn.id2774021" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge
+(MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin "egen terroristkrig"<sup>[<a name="id2727714" href="#ftn.id2727714" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge
loven og respektere eiendomsretten. For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i
denne krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi
er for eiendomsrett eller mot den.
av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
kontroll. Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
-kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2774084" href="#ftn.id2774084" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2727779" href="#ftn.id2727779" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
skaperne mot privat kontroll. Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
tradisjonen til velgjørere. I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
internett-teknologiene. Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
til denne krigen. Vi må finne en løsning snart.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
74164"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2774169"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
27862"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2727867"></a><p>
Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om "eiendomsrett". Eiendommen i
denne krigen er ikke like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige
kyllinger har så langt mistet livet. Likevel er idéene rundt denne
de nye teknologiene til internettet "tar seg til rette" mot legitime krav
til "eiendomsrett". Det er like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven
skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
74212"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2774219"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
27910"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2727916"></a><p>
Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår "kultur" som har vært
"eid" enn det er nå. Og likevel har aldri før konsentrasjonen av makt til å
-kontrollere bruken av kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er
-nå.
+kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av kulturen vært mer akseptert uten
+spørsmål enn det er nå.
</p><p>
Gåten er, hvorfor det? Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme? Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
74302"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2774308"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
28006"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2728012"></a><p>
Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk. Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon—en konsekvens
for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2722197" href="#id2722197" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
-St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 3 (South Hackensack, N.J.:
-Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2722306" href="#id2722306" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2674179" href="#id2674179" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
+St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
+Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2674291" href="#id2674291" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
å "ta" hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde ødelagt verdien
av eiendomen til Causby. Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for meg i Keith
Aokis flotte stykke, "(intellectual) Property and Sovereignty: Notes Toward
-a cultural Geography of Authorship", Stanford Law Review 48 (1996): 1293,
-1333. Se også Paul Goldstein, Real Property (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press
-(1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2722380"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2722386"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773536" href="#id2773536" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
-Lawrence Lessing, Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard Armstrong
-(Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773484" href="#id2773484" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," første
+a cultural Geography of Authorship", <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law
+Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også Paul Goldstein,
+<em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press
+(1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2726902"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2726898"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727082" href="#id2727082" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
+Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
+Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727030" href="#id2727030" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," første
elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha, tilgjengelig fra
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773636" href="#id2773636" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773652" href="#id2773652" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2672564" href="#id2672564" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2672580" href="#id2672580" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773771" href="#id2773771" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727462" href="#id2727462" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
Amanda Lenhart, "The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
Internet Access and the Digital Divide," Pew Internet and American Life
Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773865" href="#id2773865" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727556" href="#id2727556" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy",
-Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. <a class="indexterm" name="id2722378"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773902" href="#id2773902" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
-Se Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (New York: Prometheus bøker, 2001),
-kap. 13.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774021" href="#id2774021" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
+Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. <a class="indexterm" name="id2727084"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727593" href="#id2727593" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
+Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727714" href="#id2727714" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
Amy Harmon, "Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New Tools
-to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club," New York Times, 17. januar
-2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774084" href="#id2774084" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
-Neil W. Netanel, "Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society," Yale Law
-Journal 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2774090"></a>
+to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club," <em class="citetitle">New York
+Times</em>, 17 January 2002.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727779" href="#id2727779" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
+Neil W. Netanel, "Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society," <em class="citetitle">Yale
+Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2727788"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 2. "Piratvirksomhet"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Kapittel 2. "Piratvirksomhet"</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
en krig mot "piratvirksomhet". De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
-etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2774443" href="#ftn.id2774443" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
74451"></a></blockquote></div><p>
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2728146" href="#ftn.id2728146" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
28160"></a></blockquote></div><p>
I dag er vi midt inne i en annen "krig" mot "piratvirksomhet". Internettet
har fremprovosert denne krigen. Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre
grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin "eiendom" mot denne
"piratvirksomheten". En generasjon amerikanere, advarer krigerne, blir
oppdratt til å tro at "eiendom" skal være "gratis". Glem tatoveringer, ikke
-tenk på kroppspiercing—våre barn blir tyver!
+tenk på kroppspiercing—våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
</p><p>
Det er ingen tvil om at "piratvirksomhet" er galt, og at pirater bør
straffes. Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem. Å ta noe
som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt. Det er en form for
piratvirksomhet.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
74547"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
28259"></a><p>
Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor
Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som "hvis verdi, så rettighet"-teorien
-for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2774562" href="#ftn.id2774562" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha rettigheten til denne
+for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2728273" href="#ftn.id2728273" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha rettigheten til denne
verdien. Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes rettighetsorganisasjon,
ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke betale for sangene som
-jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2774579" href="#ftn.id2774579" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
+jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2728294" href="#ftn.id2728294" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
"rettighet"—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
74603"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
28322"></a><p>
Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
eierrettigheter bør virke. Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
håndtere byrden pålagt av loven—til og med byrden som den bysantiske
kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt. Det var bare nok en kostnad
ved å drive forretning.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
74657"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
28376"></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 expansion would not
extraordinary range of commercial and noncommercial creativity, the law
burdens this creativity with insanely complex and vague rules and with the
threat of obscenely severe penalties. We may be seeing, as Richard Florida
-writes, the "Rise of the Creative Class."<sup>[<a name="id2774666" href="#ftn.id2774666" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary rise of
+writes, the "Rise of the Creative Class."<sup>[<a name="id2728385" href="#ftn.id2728385" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary rise of
regulation of this creative class.
</p><p>
Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon. Vi bør begynne med å forstå
merkelappen "piratvirksomhet" i sin rette sammenheng.
</p><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><p>
I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
-dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn Plane Crazy. I november, i Colony
-teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt distribuerte tegnefilmen med
-synkronisert lyd, Steamboat Willy, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til
-Mikke Mus.
+dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
+I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
+distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
+Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
</p><p>
Film med sykronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
-The Jazz Singer. Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å kopiere teknikken og
-mikse lyd med tegnefilm. Ingen visste hvorvidt det ville virke eller ikke,
-og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans for det. Men da Disney
-gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resutlatet entydig. Som Disney beskriver
-dette første eksperimentet,
+<em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>. Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
+kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm. Ingen visste hvorvidt det
+ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
+for det. Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resutlatet
+entydig. Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
nesten instiktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse. Jeg trodde de tullet
med meg. Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt. Det var
-grufult, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2774821" href="#ftn.id2774821" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
+grufult, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2728552" href="#ftn.id2728552" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: "Jeg har aldri vært så begeistret
-i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like bra." <a class="indexterm" name="id2774843"></a>
+i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like bra." <a class="indexterm" name="id2728575"></a>
</p><p>
Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde—unntatt fra
Dette er kjent stoff. Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
annen viktig overgang. I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm. Dette geniet var
-Buster Keaton. Filmen var Steamboat Bill, Jr.
+Buster Keaton. Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
</p><p>
Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895. I stumfilm-æraen hadde
han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
-ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. Steamboat Bill, Jr. var en klassier
-av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere for sine utrolige stunts. Filmen
-var en klassisk Keaton—fantastisk populær og blant de beste i sin
-sjanger.
-</p><p>
-Steamboat Bill, Jr. appeared before Disney's cartoon Steamboat Willie. The
-coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat Willie is a direct
-cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2774887" href="#ftn.id2774887" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> and
-both are built upon a common song as a source. It is not just from the
-invention of synchronized sound in The Jazz Singer that we get Steamboat
-Willie. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of Steamboat Bill, Jr.,
-itself inspired by the song "Steamboat Bill," that we get Steamboat Willie,
-and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse.
+ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
+Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
+for sine utrolige stunts. Filmen var en klassisk Keaton—fantastisk
+populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
+</p><p>
+<em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. appeared before Disney's cartoon
+Steamboat Willie. The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat
+Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2728643" href="#ftn.id2728643" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> 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 "Steamboat Bill," that we get
+Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse.
</p><p>
Denne "låningen" var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for industrien.
Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
-ham.<sup>[<a name="id2774943" href="#ftn.id2774943" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
+ham.<sup>[<a name="id2728687" href="#ftn.id2728687" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger—små variasjoner
over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt. Nøkkelen til
suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene. Med Disney var det lyden som ga
var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm. Faktisk er katalogen
over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
-når den blir samlet: Snøhvit (1937), Fantasia (1940), Pinocchio (1940),
-Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942), Song of the South (1946), Askepott (1950), Alice
-in Wonderland (1951), Robin Hood (1952), Peter Pan (1953), Lady og
-landstrykeren (1955), Mulan (1998), Tornerose (1959), 101 dalmatinere
-(1961), Sverdet i steinen (1963), og Jungelboken (1967)—for ikke å
-nevne et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, Treasure Planet
-(2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller Disney, Inc.) hentet
-kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med kreativiteten fra sitt eget
-ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne blandingen inn i sjelen til
-sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
+når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
+<em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
+(1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
+(1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
+<em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
+Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
+<em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
+landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
+<em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
+dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
+(1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)—for ikke å nevne
+et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
+Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
+Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
+kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
+blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
</p><p>
Dette er en type kreativitet. Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
feire. Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
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.<sup>[<a name="id2775006" href="#ftn.id2775006" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
+copyrighted.<sup>[<a name="id2728829" href="#ftn.id2728829" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had
an "exclusive right" to control certain uses of the work. To use this
copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the copyright
totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and quite universal.
</p><p>
Consider, for example, a form of creativity that seems strange to many
-Americans but that is inescapable within Japanese culture: manga, or
-comics. The Japanese are fanatics about comics. Some 40 percent of
-publications are comics, and 30 percent of publication revenue derives from
-comics. They are everywhere in Japanese society, at every magazine stand,
-carried by a large proportion of commuters on Japan's extraordinary system
-of public transportation.
+Americans but that is inescapable within Japanese culture:
+<em class="citetitle">manga</em>, or comics. The Japanese are fanatics about
+comics. Some 40 percent of publications are comics, and 30 percent of
+publication revenue derives from comics. They are everywhere in Japanese
+society, at every magazine stand, carried by a large proportion of commuters
+on Japan's extraordinary system of public transportation.
</p><p>
Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture. That's an
unattractive characteristic of ours. We're likely to misunderstand much
Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
</p><p>
-This is the phenomenon of doujinshi. Doujinshi are also comics, but they are
-a kind of copycat comic. A rich ethic governs the creation of doujinshi. It
-is not doujinshi if it is just a copy; the artist must make a contribution
-to the art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or significantly. A
+This is the phenomenon of <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>. Doujinshi are
+also comics, but they are a kind of copycat comic. A rich ethic governs the
+creation of doujinshi. It is not doujinshi if it is
+<span class="emphasis"><em>just</em></span> a copy; the artist must make a contribution to the
+art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or significantly. A
doujinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and develop it
differently—with a different story line. Or the comic can keep the
character in character but change its look slightly. There is no formula for
"derivative works." There is no general practice by doujinshi artists of
securing the permission of the manga creators. Instead, the practice is
simply to take and modify the creations of others, as Walt Disney did with
-Steamboat Bill, Jr. Under both Japanese and American law, that "taking"
-without 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.
+<em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. Under both Japanese and American
+law, that "taking" without 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="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
now. . . . American comics were born out of copying each 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" and building from
-them.<sup>[<a name="id2775161" href="#ftn.id2775161" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
+them.<sup>[<a name="id2728954" href="#ftn.id2728954" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part because of
the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are
you have to stick to them." There are things Superman "cannot" do. "As a
creator, it's frustrating having to stick to some parameters which are fifty
years old."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
75252"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
29043"></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.<sup>[<a name="id2775270" href="#ftn.id2775270" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
+does not ban doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2729061" href="#ftn.id2729061" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
</p><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
We live in a world that celebrates "property." 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
-"intellectual property."<sup>[<a name="id2775345" href="#ftn.id2775345" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> A large,
+"intellectual property."<sup>[<a name="id2729136" href="#ftn.id2729136" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> A large,
diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, and
modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.
</p><p>
or paying for the privilege. ("Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but may I have
permission to use your theory of relativity to show that you were wrong
about quantum physics?") Acting companies perform adaptations of the works
-of Shakespeare without securing permission from anyone. (Does anyone believe
-Shakespeare would be better spread within our culture if there were a
-central Shakespeare rights clearinghouse that all productions of Shakespeare
-must appeal to first?) And Hollywood goes through cycles with a certain kind
-of movie: five asteroid films in the late 1990s; two volcano disaster films
-in 1997.
+of Shakespeare without securing permission from anyone. (Does
+<span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> believe Shakespeare would be better spread
+within our culture if there were a central Shakespeare rights clearinghouse
+that all productions of Shakespeare must appeal to first?) And Hollywood
+goes through cycles with a certain kind of movie: five asteroid films in the
+late 1990s; two volcano disaster films in 1997.
</p><p>
Creators here and everywhere are always and at all times building upon the
unfree, perhaps, but all societies to some degree.
</p><p>
-The hard question is therefore not whether a culture is free. All cultures
-are free to some degree. The hard question instead is "How free is this
-culture?" How much, and how broadly, is the culture free for others to take
-and build upon? Is that freedom limited to party members? To members of the
-royal family? To the top ten corporations on the New York Stock Exchange? Or
-is that freedom spread broadly? To artists generally, whether affiliated
-with the Met or not? To musicians generally, whether white or not? To
-filmmakers generally, whether affiliated with a studio or not?
+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="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?" How much, and how broadly,
+is the culture free for others to take and build upon? Is that freedom
+limited to party members? To members of the royal family? To the top ten
+corporations on the New York Stock Exchange? Or is that freedom spread
+broadly? To artists generally, whether affiliated with the Met or not? To
+musicians generally, whether white or not? To filmmakers generally, whether
+affiliated with a studio or not?
</p><p>
Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre. Vår var en fri
kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
-</p></div><div class="sect1" title='Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
75481"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="sect1" title='Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
29287"></a><p>
In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for
producing what we would call "photographs." Appropriately enough, they were
called "daguerreotypes." The process was complicated and expensive, and the
</p><p>
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. "You press the button and we do the rest."<sup>[<a name="id2775544" href="#ftn.id2775544" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in The Kodak Primer:
+of its simplicity. "You press the button and we do the rest."<sup>[<a name="id2729360" href="#ftn.id2729360" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> 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 that only an
instrument which altogether removes from the 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.<sup>[<a name="id2775576" href="#ftn.id2775576" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
+and without chemicals.<sup>[<a name="id2729388" href="#ftn.id2729388" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><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,
camera first went on sale in 1888; one 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 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2775606" href="#ftn.id2775606" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Eastman
+sales increased by percent.<sup>[<a name="id2729421" href="#ftn.id2729421" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Eastman
Kodak's sales during the same period experienced an average annual increase
-of over 17 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2775614" href="#ftn.id2775614" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
75623"></a><p>
+of over 17 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2729429" href="#ftn.id2729429" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
29438"></a><p>
The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It
man on the street with a 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."<sup>[<a name="id2775642" href="#ftn.id2775642" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
+without [literary] interpretation or bias."<sup>[<a name="id2729457" href="#ftn.id2729457" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
</p><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
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.<sup>[<a name="id2775677" href="#ftn.id2775677" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
+no.<sup>[<a name="id2729504" href="#ftn.id2729504" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as Disney was not free to
take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so, too, should
these photographers not be free to take images that they thought valuable.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
75690"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
29534"></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.<sup>[<a name="id2775713" href="#ftn.id2775713" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) It may be that this means that the photographer gets something for
-nothing. Just as Disney could take inspiration from Steamboat Bill, Jr. or
-the Brothers Grimm, the photographer should be free to capture an image
-without compensating the source.
+be different for images from private spaces.<sup>[<a name="id2729557" href="#ftn.id2729557" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) 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><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
craft an exception for famous 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.<sup>[<a name="id2775752" href="#ftn.id2775752" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
+without clearing the rights to do the capturing.<sup>[<a name="id2729602" href="#ftn.id2729602" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
</p><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,
travel to more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred
children to learn something about media by doing something with media. By
doing, they think. By tinkering, they learn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
75786"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
29648"></a><p>
These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly
so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen
dramatically. As one analyst puts it, "Five years ago, a good real-time
digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get professional
-quality for $595."<sup>[<a name="id2775855" href="#ftn.id2775855" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> These buses are
+quality for $595."<sup>[<a name="id2729692" href="#ftn.id2729692" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> 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
puts it, "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."
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2775883"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2729720"></a>
</p><p>
This may seem like an odd way to think about "literacy." For most people,
literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway and noticing
</p><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,<sup>[<a name="id2775904" href="#ftn.id2775904" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
+generally,<sup>[<a name="id2729742" href="#ftn.id2729742" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
to understand the "grammar" 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 terrible prose, kids learn how to write media by
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="id27
75942"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
29786"></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 "the placement
-of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and texture."<sup>[<a name="id2775957" href="#ftn.id2775957" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open up an interactive space where
+of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and texture."<sup>[<a name="id2729800" href="#ftn.id2729800" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open up an interactive space where
a story is "played" as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple
control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author
Michael Crichton had mastered the narrative of science fiction. 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.<sup>[<a name="id2775989" href="#ftn.id2775989" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
76009"></a><p>
+author.<sup>[<a name="id2729832" href="#ftn.id2729832" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
29854"></a><p>
This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes,
"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 have no idea. If a
the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that
enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this
literacy in particular, is to "empower people to choose the appropriate
-language for what they need to create or express."<sup>[<a name="id2776058" href="#ftn.id2776058" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable students "to communicate in the
-language of the twenty-first century."<sup>[<a name="id2776076" href="#ftn.id2776076" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
76083"></a><p>
+language for what they need to create or express."<sup>[<a name="id2729903" href="#ftn.id2729903" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable students "to communicate in the
+language of the twenty-first century."<sup>[<a name="id2729921" href="#ftn.id2729921" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
29929"></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
written language. Daley and Stephanie Barish, director of the Institute for
students, `you have to do it in text,' they would've just thrown their hands
up and gone and done something else," Barish described, in part, no doubt,
because expressing themselves in text is not something these students can do
-well. Yet neither is text a form in which these ideas can be expressed
-well. The power of this message depended upon its connection to this form of
-expression.
+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><p>
seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly
come to expect it, "news as entertainment," even if the entertainment is
tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
76215"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2776220"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
30082"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2730088"></a><p>
But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of September 11,"
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 events. Yet these
shows with text. Some offered open letters. There were sound
recordings. There was anger and frustration. There were attempts to provide
context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn raising, in
-the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book Cyber Rights, around a news
-event that had captured the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS,
-but there was also the Internet.
+the sense Mike Godwin uses 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><p>
I don't mean simply to praise the Internet—though I do think the
to come into public consciousness: the Web-log, or blog. The blog is a kind
of public diary, and within some cultures, 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 Jerry Springer, available
-anywhere in the world.
+public way—it's a kind of electronic <em class="citetitle">Jerry
+Springer</em>, available anywhere in the world.
</p><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
impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the "right" result; they
tried to persuade each other of the "right" result, and in criminal cases at
least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to
-an end.<sup>[<a name="id2776258" href="#ftn.id2776258" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
+an end.<sup>[<a name="id2730129" href="#ftn.id2730129" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
</p><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.<sup>[<a name="id2776340" href="#ftn.id2776340" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
+pushing to create just such an institution.<sup>[<a name="id2730216" href="#ftn.id2730216" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> 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 "democratic deliberation" to occur.
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id2776361" href="#ftn.id2776361" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> We say what our
+becomes more extreme.<sup>[<a name="id2730246" href="#ftn.id2730246" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> We say what our
friends want to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say.
</p><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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2776401"></a>
+effect. <a class="indexterm" name="id2730290"></a>
</p><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 "misspoke"
didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The bloggers kept researching
the story. Over time, more and more instances of the same "misspeaking"
emerged. Finally, the story broke back into the mainstream press. In the
-end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2773170" href="#ftn.id2773170" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2773178"></a>
+end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2730309" href="#ftn.id2730309" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2730318"></a>
</p><p>
This different cycle is possible because the same commercial pressures don't
exist with blogs as with other ventures. Television and newspapers are
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."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
73234"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
30370"></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.<sup>[<a name="id2776316" href="#ftn.id2776316" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
+employees.<sup>[<a name="id2730190" href="#ftn.id2730190" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the
Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink
with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter
over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer
a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
-told her that they were writing "the story.")
+told her <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> they were writing "the story.")
</p><p> Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate—"amateur" not in
the sense of inexperienced, but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning
not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range
of input into a story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when
hundreds from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to
-retell what they had seen.<sup>[<a name="id2773267" href="#ftn.id2773267" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it
+retell what they had seen.<sup>[<a name="id2730405" href="#ftn.id2730405" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it
drives readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as
Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly
with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it"—with all the
blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for public
figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's not clear that
"journalism" is happy about this—some journalists have been told to
-curtail their blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2773294" href="#ftn.id2773294" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear
+curtail their blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2730435" href="#ftn.id2730435" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear
that we are still in transition. "A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
exercises," Winer told me. There is a lot that must mature before this
space has its mature effect. And as the inclusion of content in this space
criticism improves democracy. 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="id27
73355"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
30501"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work,
as his Web site describes it, is "human learning and . . . the creation of
knowledge ecologies for creating . . . innovation."
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."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
76980"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
30595"></a><p>
Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and Just
Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well as
These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars.
Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter 10) has
developed a powerful argument in favor of the "right to tinker" as it
-applies to computer science and to knowledge in general.<sup>[<a name="id2777014" href="#ftn.id2777014" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more
+applies to computer science and to knowledge in general.<sup>[<a name="id2730629" href="#ftn.id2730629" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> 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>
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."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
77042"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
30660"></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 the law to close down
don't think there's anything wrong with the search engine that I ran or
. . . what I had done to it. I mean, I hadn't modified it in any way that
promoted or enhanced the work of pirates. I just modified the search engine
-in a way that would make it easier to use"—again, a search engine,
-which Jesse had not himself built, using the Windows filesharing system,
-which Jesse had not himself built, to enable members of the 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.
+in a way that would make it easier to use"—again, a <span class="emphasis"><em>search
+engine</em></span>, which Jesse had not himself built, using the Windows
+filesharing system, which Jesse had not himself built, to enable members of
+the 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><p>
But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a network and
different in detail, the bottom line in each was exactly the same: huge
demands for "damages" that the RIAA claimed it was entitled to. If you
added up the claims, these four lawsuits were asking courts in the United
-States to award the plaintiffs close to $100 billion—six times the
-total profit of the film industry in 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2777200" href="#ftn.id2777200" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
+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.<sup>[<a name="id2727105" href="#ftn.id2727105" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
</p><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
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.<sup>[<a name="id2777296" href="#ftn.id2777296" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and
+are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $45,900.<sup>[<a name="id2727171" href="#ftn.id2727171" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> 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?<sup>[<a name="id2777302" href="#ftn.id2777302" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
+running a search engine?<sup>[<a name="id2727187" href="#ftn.id2727187" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
for RIA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
pirates join this generation's country club—until now.
</p><div class="sect2" title="Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="film"></a>Film</h3></div></div></div><p>
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id2777383" href="#ftn.id2777383" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast
+The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id2727268" href="#ftn.id2727268" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> 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 exercised through a monopoly "trust," the Motion Pictures Patents
discontinued product supply to theaters which showed 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.<sup>[<a name="id2777439" href="#ftn.id2777439" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2777461"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2777467"></a>
+defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id2727327" href="#ftn.id2727327" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2727354"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2731390"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The Napsters of those days, the "independents," were companies like Fox. And
no less than today, these independents were vigorously resisted. "Shooting
was disrupted by machinery stolen, and `accidents' resulting in loss of
negatives, equipment, buildings and sometimes life and limb frequently
-occurred."<sup>[<a name="id2777483" href="#ftn.id2777483" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to
+occurred."<sup>[<a name="id2731406" href="#ftn.id2731406" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> 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 law. And
the leaders of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's 1899 hit "Happy Mose,"
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="id27
77544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
31469"></a><p>
But what if I wanted to record "Happy Mose," 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 performed in making
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.<sup>[<a name="id2777590" href="#ftn.id2777590" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
+without any regard for [their] rights.<sup>[<a name="id2731515" href="#ftn.id2731515" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
were "sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of American
-composers,"<sup>[<a name="id2777610" href="#ftn.id2777610" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the "music publishing
+composers,"<sup>[<a name="id2731538" href="#ftn.id2731538" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the "music publishing
industry" was thereby "at the complete mercy of this one
-pirate."<sup>[<a name="id2777620" href="#ftn.id2777620" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As John Philip Sousa put it,
+pirate."<sup>[<a name="id2731548" href="#ftn.id2731548" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As John Philip Sousa put it,
in as direct a way as possible, "When they make money out of my pieces, I
-want a share of it."<sup>[<a name="id2777632" href="#ftn.id2777632" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
+want a share of it."<sup>[<a name="id2731559" href="#ftn.id2731559" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
</p><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 "it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of automatic
music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had before their
introduction." Rather, the machines increased the sales of sheet
-music.<sup>[<a name="id2777649" href="#ftn.id2777649" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the innovators
+music.<sup>[<a name="id2731577" href="#ftn.id2731577" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the innovators
argued, the job of Congress was "to consider first the interest of [the
public], whom they represent, and whose servants they are." "All talk about
`theft,'" the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company wrote, "is
the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas musical, literary
-or artistic, except as defined by statute."<sup>[<a name="id2777655" href="#ftn.id2777655" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
+or artistic, except as defined by statute."<sup>[<a name="id2731583" href="#ftn.id2731583" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer and the recording
-artist. Congress amended the law to make sure that composers would be paid
-for the "mechanical reproductions" of their music. But rather than simply
-granting the composer complete control over the right to make mechanical
-reproductions, Congress gave recording artists a right to record the music,
-at a price set by Congress, once the composer allowed it to be recorded
-once. This is the part of copyright law that makes cover songs
-possible. Once a composer authorizes a recording of his song, others are
-free to record the same song, so long as they pay the original composer a
-fee set by the law.
+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 "mechanical reproductions" of
+their music. But rather than simply granting the composer complete control
+over the right to make mechanical reproductions, Congress gave recording
+artists a right to record the music, at a price set by Congress, once the
+composer allowed it to be recorded once. This is the part of copyright law
+that makes cover songs possible. Once a composer authorizes a recording of
+his song, others are free to record the same song, so long as they pay the
+original composer a fee set by the law.
</p><p>
American law ordinarily calls this a "compulsory license," but I will refer
to it as a "statutory license." A statutory license is a license whose key
publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
for that permission. The price to publish 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2777723"></a>
+work except with permission of Grisham. <a class="indexterm" name="id2731642"></a>
</p><p>
But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
-effect, the law subsidizes the recording industry through a kind of
-piracy—by giving recording artists a weaker right than it otherwise
-gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over their creative
-work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less control are the
-recording industry and the public. The recording industry gets something of
-value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public gets access to a much
-wider range 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.<sup>[<a name="id2777405" href="#ftn.id2777405" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2777756"></a>
+effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
+through a kind of piracy—by giving recording artists a weaker right
+than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
+their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
+control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
+gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
+gets access to a much wider range 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.<sup>[<a name="id2727293" href="#ftn.id2727293" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2731694"></a>
</p><p>
While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
license as a deliberate 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.<sup>[<a name="id2777788" href="#ftn.id2777788" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
+choice.<sup>[<a name="id2731726" href="#ftn.id2731726" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
Radio was also born of piracy.
</p><p>
When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a "public
-performance" of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2777824" href="#ftn.id2777824" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As
+performance" of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2731762" href="#ftn.id2731762" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> 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.
</p><p>
But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
-of the composer's work. The radio station is also performing a copy of the
-recording artist's work. It's one thing to have "Happy Birthday" sung on the
-radio by the local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by
-the Rolling Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the
-value of the composition performed on the radio station. And if the 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="id2777872"></a>
+of the <span class="emphasis"><em>composer's</em></span> work. The radio station is also
+performing a copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>recording artist's</em></span> work. It's
+one thing to have "Happy Birthday" sung on the radio by the local children's
+choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling Stones or Lyle
+Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the composition
+performed on the radio station. And if the 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="id2731836"></a>
</p><p>
our law, every time a radio station plays your song, you get some money. But
Madonna gets nothing, save the indirect effect on the sale of her CDs. The
public performance of her recording is not a "protected" right. The radio
-station thus gets to pirate the value of Madonna's work without paying her
-anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
77920"></a><p>
+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="id27
31887"></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
sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
egregiously than anything Napster ever did— Napster never charged for
the content it enabled others to give away.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
77954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2777971"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
31921"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2731937"></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 "unfair and
-potentially destructive competition."<sup>[<a name="id2777982" href="#ftn.id2777982" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup>
+potentially destructive competition."<sup>[<a name="id2731949" href="#ftn.id2731949" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup>
There may have been a "public interest" 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, "Does public
-interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?"<sup>[<a name="id2777998" href="#ftn.id2777998" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another broadcaster put it,
+interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?"<sup>[<a name="id2731965" href="#ftn.id2731965" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2778015" href="#ftn.id2778015" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
+for.<sup>[<a name="id2731982" href="#ftn.id2731982" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
</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.<sup>[<a name="id2778039" href="#ftn.id2778039" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
+words which would fit it.<sup>[<a name="id2732006" href="#ftn.id2732006" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Disse var "gratispassasjerer", sa presidenten Charlton Heston i Screen
-Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"<sup>[<a name="id2778056" href="#ftn.id2778056" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
+Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"<sup>[<a name="id2732024" href="#ftn.id2732024" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister
Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
extend that monopoly. . . . The question here is how much compensation they
should have and how far back they should carry their right to
-compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2778083" href="#ftn.id2778083" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2778102"></a>
+compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2732051" href="#ftn.id2732051" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2732069"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
</p><p>
These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy" means using value
from someone else's creative property without permission from that
-creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2778089" href="#ftn.id2778089" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> — then every 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
+creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2732056" href="#ftn.id2732056" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> — 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><div class="sect1" title='Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</h2></div></div></div><p>
There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
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<sup>[<a name="id2778145" href="#ftn.id2778145" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
+every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2732133" href="#ftn.id2732133" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (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.<sup>[<a name="id2778279" href="#ftn.id2778279" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
+intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2732264" href="#ftn.id2732264" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> 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.
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.<sup>[<a name="id2778320" href="#ftn.id2778320" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
+otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2732322" href="#ftn.id2732322" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
</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 for the content they
</p><p>
This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
-right of a very special sort, it is a property right. Like all property
-rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to decide the terms under
-which content is shared. If the copyright owner doesn't want to sell, she
-doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important statutory licenses that
-apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish of the copyright
-owner. Those licenses give people the right to "take" copyrighted content
-whether or not the copyright owner wants to sell. But where the law does not
-give people the right to take content, it is wrong to take that content even
-if the wrong does no harm. If we have 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
-"property" means.
+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 owner the right to
+decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
+doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
+statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
+of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to "take"
+copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner wants to sell. But
+where the law does not give people the right to take content, it is wrong to
+take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If we have 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 "property" means.
</p><p>
Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese "steal" Windows,
that buying will benefit Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If
instead of pirating 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2778423"></a>
+Microsoft. Without piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732418"></a>
</p><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,
</p></div><div class="sect2" title="Piracy II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>Piracy II</h3></div></div></div><p>
The key to the "piracy" that the law aims to quash is a use that "rob[s] the
-author of [his] profit."<sup>[<a name="id2778518" href="#ftn.id2778518" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we
+author of [his] profit."<sup>[<a name="id2732513" href="#ftn.id2732513" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> 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.
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<sup>[<a name="id2778536" href="#ftn.id2778536" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
+Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2732536" href="#ftn.id2732536" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
crew had simply put together components that had been developed
-independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2778560"></a>
+independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732566"></a>
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id2778573" href="#ftn.id2778573" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
+there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id2732579" href="#ftn.id2732579" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> 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 architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
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.<sup>[<a name="id2778594" href="#ftn.id2778594" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
-the NPD group quoted in The New York Times estimated that 43 million
-citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in May
-2003.<sup>[<a name="id2778616" href="#ftn.id2778616" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these are
-not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is being
-"taken" on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness of file-sharing
-networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that they hadn't
-before.
+Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2732614" href="#ftn.id2732614" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2732642" href="#ftn.id2732642" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
+are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
+being "taken" on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness of
+file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
+they hadn't before.
</p><p>
Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
-of purchasing. <a class="indexterm" name="id2778667"></a>
+of purchasing. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732704"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id2778736" href="#ftn.id2778736" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
+economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2732773" href="#ftn.id2732773" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> 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 available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
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, "Rather
than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought
-it."<sup>[<a name="id2778778" href="#ftn.id2778778" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed that every
+it."<sup>[<a name="id2732817" href="#ftn.id2732817" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> 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.
the end," Cap Gemini concludes, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2778808" href="#ftn.id2778808" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
+labels."<sup>[<a name="id2732864" href="#ftn.id2732864" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
</p><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 the society that
inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR—the question is not simply
-whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also how harmful type A
-sharing is, and how beneficial the other types of sharing are.
+whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
+<span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
+other types of sharing are.
</p><p>
We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause. The
"net harm" to the industry as a whole is the amount by which type A sharing
exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records through sampling
than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks would actually
-benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have little static
-reason to resist them.
+benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have little
+<span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
+
</p><p>
Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
it might be close.
</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.<sup>[<a name="id2778857" href="#ftn.id2778857" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
+million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2732919" href="#ftn.id2732919" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> 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. "From 1999 to 2001, the average price
-of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19."<sup>[<a name="id2778902" href="#ftn.id2778902" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
-account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of BusinessWeek notes, "The
-soundtrack to the film High Fidelity has a list price of $18.98. You could
-get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99."<sup>[<a name="id2778929" href="#ftn.id2778929" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
+of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19."<sup>[<a name="id2732964" href="#ftn.id2732964" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
+account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
+<em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2732996" href="#ftn.id2732996" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
One benefit is type C sharing—making available content that 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.<sup>[<a name="id2778952" href="#ftn.id2778952" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
+are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2733020" href="#ftn.id2733020" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
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
-to the company to make it available.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
</p><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.<sup>[<a name="id2779007" href="#ftn.id2779007" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
+of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2733077" href="#ftn.id2733077" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
-this content, even if the content is still under copyright, the copyright
-owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and record stores are commercial
-entities; their owners make 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="id27
79047"></a><p>
+this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
+copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
+record stores are commercial entities; their owners make 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="id27
33124"></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 available. It is also
sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
-for example, released his first novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom,
-both free on-line and in bookstores on the same day. His (and his
-publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution would be a great
-advertisement for the "real" book. People would read part on-line, and then
-decide whether they liked the book or not. If they liked it, they would be
-more likely to buy it. Doctorow's content is 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!)
+for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
+Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
+day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
+would be a great advertisement for the "real" book. People would read part
+on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or not. If they liked
+it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's content is 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><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
technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
good enough. Napster had to push the infringements "down to
-zero."<sup>[<a name="id2779159" href="#ftn.id2779159" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
+zero."<sup>[<a name="id2733227" href="#ftn.id2733227" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
</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 assure
holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
-cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure compensation without
-giving the past (broadcasters) control over the future (cable).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2779233"></a><p>
+cable. Thus 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="id2733324"></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 them today, VCRs) that Sony had
called VCRs "tapeworms." He warned, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2779296" href="#ftn.id2779296" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup>
+copyright owner has, his copyright."<sup>[<a name="id2733372" href="#ftn.id2733372" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup>
"One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and creative
judgment," he told Congress, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2779313" href="#ftn.id2779313" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later
+sense."<sup>[<a name="id2733389" href="#ftn.id2733389" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later
show, percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or
-more<sup>[<a name="id2779322" href="#ftn.id2779322" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup> — a use the Court would
+more<sup>[<a name="id2733398" href="#ftn.id2733398" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup> — a use the Court would
later hold was not "fair." By "allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the
means of an exemption from copyright infringementwithout creating a
mechanism to compensate copyrightowners," Valenti testified, Congress would
"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."<sup>[<a name="id2779234" href="#ftn.id2779234" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
+thereby profit from its reproduction."<sup>[<a name="id2733306" href="#ftn.id2733306" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
</p><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
for the copyright infringement made possible by its machines. Under the
Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar technology—which Jack
Valenti had called "the Boston Strangler of the American film industry"
-(worse yet, it was a Japanese Boston Strangler of the American film
-industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2779352" href="#ftn.id2779352" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup>
+(worse yet, it was a <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the
+American film industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2733433" href="#ftn.id2733433" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit. And in
copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
-technology.<sup>[<a name="id2779389" href="#ftn.id2779389" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
+technology.<sup>[<a name="id2733478" href="#ftn.id2733478" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><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
notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a pattern is clear:
</p><div class="table"><a name="t1"></a><p class="title"><b>Tabell 2.1. Tabell</b></p><div class="table-contents"><table summary="Tabell" border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char">CASE</th><th align="char">WHOSE VALUE WAS "PIRATED"</th><th align="char">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="char">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Innspillinger</td><td align="char">Komponister</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Radio</td><td align="char">Innspillingsartister</td><td align="char">N/A</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Kabel-TV</td><td align="char">Kringkastere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">VCR</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><br class="table-break"><p>
In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
-content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2779513" href="#ftn.id2779513" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
+content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2733607" href="#ftn.id2733607" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a "free ride" on
someone else's work.
</p><p>
-In none of these cases did either the courts or Congress eliminate all free
-riding. In none of these cases did the courts or Congress insist that the
-law should assure that the copyright holder get all the value that his
-copyright created. In every case, the copyright owners complained of
-"piracy." In every case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy
-in the behavior of the "pirates." In each case, Congress allowed some new
-technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
-stake.
+In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
+Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
+cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
+copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
+case, the copyright owners complained of "piracy." In every case, Congress
+acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of the "pirates."
+In each case, Congress allowed some new technology to benefit from content
+made before. It balanced the interests at stake.
</p><p>
When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
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
"has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible
-uses of his work."<sup>[<a name="id2779575" href="#ftn.id2779575" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup> Instead, the
+uses of his work."<sup>[<a name="id2733695" href="#ftn.id2733695" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup> 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 balancing has historically been done after
-a technology has matured, or settled into the mix of technologies that
-facilitate the distribution of content.
+exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically been done
+<span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled into the mix
+of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
</p><p>
We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network. Left to
develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these
-"potential public benefits," as John Schwartz writes in The New York Times,
-"could be delayed in the P2P fight."<sup>[<a name="id2779616" href="#ftn.id2779616" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup>
-Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the copyright warriors raise
-a different argument. "All this hand waving about balance and incentives,"
-they say, "misses a fundamental point. Our content," the warriors insist,
-"is our property. Why should we wait for Congress to `rebalance' our
-property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the police when your car
-has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at all about the merits
-of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a good use for the car
-before we arrest him?"
+"potential public benefits," as John Schwartz writes in <em class="citetitle">The New
+York Times</em>, "could be delayed in the P2P fight."<sup>[<a name="id2733746" href="#ftn.id2733746" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the
+copyright warriors raise a different argument. "All this hand waving about
+balance and incentives," they say, "misses a fundamental point. Our
+content," the warriors insist, "is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why
+should we wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have
+to wait before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why
+should Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask
+whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?"
</p><p>
-"It is our property," the warriors insist. "And it should be protected just
-as any other property is protected."
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774443" href="#id2774443" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
+"It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>," the warriors insist. "And it
+should be protected just as any other property is protected."
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728146" href="#id2728146" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
-Bach v. Longman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774562" href="#id2774562" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
+Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728273" href="#id2728273" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, "Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the
-Pepsi Generation," Notre Dame Law Review 65 (1990): 397.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774579" href="#id2774579" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
+Pepsi Generation," <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review</em> 65 (1990):
+397.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728294" href="#id2728294" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
Lisa Bannon, "The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay Up,"
-Wall Street Journal, 21. august 1996, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>; Jonathan Zittrain,
-"Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free Speech, No
-One Wins," Boston Globe, 24. november 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2774592"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774666" href="#id2774666" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
-
-I The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002), dokumenterer
-Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot kreativitetsarbeide. Hans
-tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske vilkår som kreativiteten
-blir muliggjort eller hindret under. Jeg er helt klart enig med ham i
-viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg tror også at
-vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye vanskeligere.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2774719"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774821" href="#id2774821" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Leonard Maltin, Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated Cartoons
-(New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34–35.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774887" href="#id2774887" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
-beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>. I
-følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
-musikken til fem sanger i Steamboat Willie: "Steamboat Bill," "The
-Simpleton" (Delille), "Mischief Makers" (Carbonara), "Joyful Hurry No. 1"
-(Baron), og "Gawky Rube" (Lakay). En sjette sang, "The Turkey in the Straw,"
-var allerede allemannseie. Brev fra David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli
-2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til forfatteren.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2774943" href="#id2774943" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
+<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, "Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
+Speech, No One Wins," <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 24 November
+2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2728312"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728385" href="#id2728385" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
+
+I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
+Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
+kreativitetsarbeide. Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
+vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under. Jeg er helt
+klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
+tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
+vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2728440"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728552" href="#id2728552" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
+
+
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728643" href="#id2728643" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
+
+
+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>. According to Dave
+Smith of the Disney Archives, Disney paid royalties to use the music for
+five songs in <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>: "Steamboat Bill,"
+"The Simpleton" (Delille), "Mischief Makers" (Carbonara), "Joyful Hurry
+No. 1" (Baron), and "Gawky Rube" (Lakay). A sixth song, "The Turkey in the
+Straw," was already in the public domain. Letter from David Smith to Harry
+Surden, 10 July 2003, on file with author.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728687" href="#id2728687" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, "The Mouse that
Ate the Public Domain," Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775006" href="#id2775006" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728829" href="#id2728829" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
year 1, and only 15 are renewed, and the renewal term is 28 years, then the
average 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775161" href="#id2775161" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2728954" href="#id2728954" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
-For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, Reinventing Comics (New York:
-Perennial, 2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775270" href="#id2775270" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
+For an excellent history, see Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
+Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729061" href="#id2729061" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
See Salil K. Mehra, "Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain Why All
-the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?" Rutgers Law Review 55
-(2002): 155, 182. "[T]here might be a collective economic rationality that
-would lead manga and anime artists to forgo bringing legal actions for
-infringement. One hypothesis is that all manga 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."
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775345" href="#id2775345" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
-
-The term intellectual property is of relatively recent origin. See Siva
-Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 11 (New York: New York University
-Press, 2001). See also Lawrence Lessig, The Future of Ideas (New York:
+the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?" <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law
+Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. "[T]here might be a collective
+economic rationality that would lead manga and anime artists to forgo
+bringing legal actions for infringement. One hypothesis is that all manga
+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."
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729136" href="#id2729136" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
+
+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> (New York:
Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of
"property" rights—copyright, patents, trademark, and
trade-secret—but the nature of those rights is very different.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2775354"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775544" href="#id2775544" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2729153"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729360" href="#id2729360" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
-Reese V. Jenkins, Images and Enterprise (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
-Press, 1975), 112.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775576" href="#id2775576" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
+Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
+Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729388" href="#id2729388" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
-Brian Coe, The Birth of Photography (New York: Taplinger Publishing, 1977),
-53. <a class="indexterm" name="id2775581"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775606" href="#id2775606" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
+Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
+Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id2729396"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729421" href="#id2729421" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775614" href="#id2775614" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729429" href="#id2729429" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775642" href="#id2775642" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729457" href="#id2729457" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775677" href="#id2775677" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729504" href="#id2729504" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
-For illustrative cases, see, for example, Pavesich v. N.E. Life Ins. Co., 50
-S.E.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775713" href="#id2775713" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729557" href="#id2729557" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
-Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," Harvard Law
-Review 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2775719"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2775728"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775752" href="#id2775752" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
+Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy,"
+<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2729566"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2729574"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729602" href="#id2729602" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
-See Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," Law and Contemporary
-Problems 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, "Privacy," California Law
-Review 48 (1960) 398–407; White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
-971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775855" href="#id2775855" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
+See Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," <em class="citetitle">Law and
+Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
+"Privacy," <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729692" href="#id2729692" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
H. Edward Goldberg, "Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You
Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations," cadalyst, februar 2002,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775904" href="#id2775904" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729742" href="#id2729742" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
-Judith Van Evra, Television and Child Development (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
-Erlbaum Associates, 1990); "Findings on Family and TV Study," Denver Post,
-25 May 1997, B6.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775957" href="#id2775957" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
+Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
+(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); "Findings on Family
+and TV Study," <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May 1997, B6.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729800" href="#id2729800" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2775964"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2775973"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2775989" href="#id2775989" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2729808"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2729816"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729832" href="#id2729832" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
Se Scott Steinberg, "Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs," E!online, 4. november
2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#8</a>; "Timeline," 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2776058" href="#id2776058" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729903" href="#id2729903" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2776064"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2776076" href="#id2776076" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2729910"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2729921" href="#id2729921" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2776258" href="#id2776258" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730129" href="#id2730129" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, bk. 1,
-trans. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books, 2000), ch. 16.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2776340" href="#id2776340" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730216" href="#id2730216" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
-Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day," Journal of Political
-Philosophy 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2776361" href="#id2776361" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
+Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day," <em class="citetitle">Journal of
+Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730246" href="#id2730246" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
-Cass Sunstein, Republic.com (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001),
-65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773170" href="#id2773170" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
+Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
+University Press, 2001), 65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730309" href="#id2730309" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
Noah Shachtman, "With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot," New York
Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2776316" href="#id2776316" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730190" href="#id2730190" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773267" href="#id2773267" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730405" href="#id2730405" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of Information
-Online," New York Times, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, "Shuttle
-Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," Online Journalism Review, 2
-February 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#10</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2773294" href="#id2773294" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
-
-See Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?" New York
-Times, 29 September 2003, C4. ("Not all news organizations have been as
-accepting of employees who blog. Kevin Sites, a CNN correspondent in Iraq
-who started a blog about his reporting of the war on March 9, stopped
-posting 12 days later at his bosses' request. Last year Steve Olafson, a
-Houston Chronicle reporter, was fired for keeping a personal Web log,
-published under a pseudonym, that dealt with some of the issues and people
-he was covering.") <a class="indexterm" name="id2773304"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777014" href="#id2777014" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
+Online," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci
+D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730435" href="#id2730435" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
+
+See Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?"
+<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. ("Not all news
+organizations have been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin Sites, a
+CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of the war
+on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses' request. Last year
+Steve Olafson, a <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.") <a class="indexterm" name="id2730467"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2730629" href="#id2730629" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, "Technological Access
-Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship," Communications of the
-Association for Computer Machinery 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777200" href="#id2777200" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,"
+<em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
+Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727105" href="#id2727105" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+
Tim Goral, "Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
-Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages," Professional Media Group LCC 6 (2003): 5,
-tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777296" href="#id2777296" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
+Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages," <em class="citetitle">Professional Media Group
+LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, available at 2003 WL 55179443.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727171" href="#id2727171" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
(27–2042—Musicians and Singers). See also National Endowment for
-the Arts, More Than One in a Blue Moon (2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777302" href="#id2777302" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
+the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727187" href="#id2727187" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
-Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i "KaZaA and Punishment," Wall
-Street Journal, 10. september 2003, A24.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777383" href="#id2777383" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
+Douglas Lichtman makes a related point in "KaZaA and Punishment,"
+<em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10 September 2003, A24.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727268" href="#id2727268" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary
-history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs,
-87–93, which details Edison's "adventures" with copyright and patent.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2777303"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777439" href="#id2777439" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
+history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
+Copywrongs</em>, 87–93, which details Edison's "adventures"
+with copyright and patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2727178"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727327" href="#id2727327" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
-J. A. Aberdeen, Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent Motion
-Picture Producers (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and expanded texts
-posted at "The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion Picture Patents Company
-vs. the Independent Outlaws," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a discussion of
+J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
+Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
+expanded texts posted at "The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion Picture
+
Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a discussion of
the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits imposed by
Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright"
(September 2002), University of Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in
-Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 159. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777483" href="#id2777483" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
+Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 159. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731406" href="#id2731406" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
-Marc Wanamaker, "The First Studios," The Silents Majority, arkivert på
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777590" href="#id2777590" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
+Marc Wanamaker, "The First Studios," <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731515" href="#id2731515" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
-chairman), reprinted in Legislative History of the Copyright Act, E. Fulton
-Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints,
-1976).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777610" href="#id2777610" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
+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).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731538" href="#id2731538" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (statement of
Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777620" href="#id2777620" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731548" href="#id2731548" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (statement of
Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777632" href="#id2777632" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731559" href="#id2731559" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (statement of
John Philip Sousa, composer).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777649" href="#id2777649" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731577" href="#id2731577" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777655" href="#id2777655" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731583" href="#id2731583" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777405" href="#id2777405" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2727293" href="#id2727293" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
+
Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
-Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe
-Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777788" href="#id2777788" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
+<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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731726" href="#id2731726" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777824" href="#id2777824" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
-
-See 17 United States Code, sections 106 and 110. At the beginning, record
-companies printed "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast" and other messages
-purporting to restrict the ability to play a record on a radio station.
-Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument that a warning attached to a record
-might restrict the rights of the radio station. See RCA Manufacturing
-Co. v. Whiteman, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker,
-"From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and
-the Propertization of Copyright," University of Chicago Law Review 70
-(2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="id2777837"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2777846"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777982" href="#id2777982" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
+1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731762" href="#id2731762" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
+
+See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
+the beginning, record companies printed "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast"
+and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to play a record on a
+radio station. Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument that a warning
+attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio station. See
+<em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
+Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
+Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag:
+Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright,"
+<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 281.
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2731787"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2731796"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731949" href="#id2731949" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
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).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2777998" href="#id2777998" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731965" href="#id2731965" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778015" href="#id2778015" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2731982" href="#id2731982" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778039" href="#id2778039" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732006" href="#id2732006" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778056" href="#id2778056" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732024" href="#id2732024" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
president i Screen Actors Guild).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778083" href="#id2778083" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732051" href="#id2732051" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-acting assistant attorney general). <a class="indexterm" name="id2778062"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778089" href="#id2778089" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, The Engine of Free
-Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free Information,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#13</a>. "The threat of piracy—the use of someone else's creative
-work without permission or compensation—has grown with the Internet."
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778145" href="#id2778145" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), The
-Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003, July 2003, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #14</a>. See also Ben
-Hunt, "Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk," Financial Times, 14 February
-2003, 11.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778279" href="#id2778279" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
-
-See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the
-Knowledge Economy? (New York: The New Press, 2003), 10–13, 209. The
-Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement
-obligates member nations to create administrative and enforcement mechanisms
-for intellectual property rights, a costly proposition for developing
-countries. Additionally, patent rights may lead to higher prices for staple
-industries such as agriculture. Critics of TRIPS question the disparity
-between burdens imposed upon developing countries and benefits conferred to
-industrialized nations. TRIPS does permit governments to use patents for
-public, noncommercial uses without first obtaining the patent holder's
-permission. Developing nations may 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="id2777656"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778320" href="#id2778320" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
+acting assistant attorney general). <a class="indexterm" name="id2732029"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732056" href="#id2732056" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
+
+
+See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
+Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free
+Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. "The threat of
+piracy—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
+compensation—has grown with the Internet."
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732133" href="#id2732133" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+
+
+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, "Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,"
+<em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732264" href="#id2732264" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
+
+See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
+<em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
+Press, 2003), 10–13, 209. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
+Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
+administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
+a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
+may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
+of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
+countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
+permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
+first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may 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="id2731584"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732322" href="#id2732322" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
-Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy (New York: Amacom, 2002),
-144–90. "In some instances . . . the impact of piracy on the copyright
-holder's ability to appropriate the value of the work will 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." Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2778284"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778518" href="#id2778518" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Bach v. Longman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778536" href="#id2778536" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
-
-See Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary
-National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do Business (New York:
-HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies that
-give rise to and dominate a product area are frequently unable to come up
-with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses for their own products. This
-job usually falls to outside innovators, who reassemble existing technology
-in inventive ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence
-Lessig, Future, 89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2778325"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778573" href="#id2778573" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Carolyn Lochhead, "Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare," San
-Francisco Chronicle, 24 September 2002, A1; "Rock 'n' Roll Suicide," New
-Scientist, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, "Napster Names CEO, Secures
-New Financing," San Francisco Chronicle, 23 May 2003, C1; "Napster's Wake-Up
-Call," Economist, 24 June 2000, 23; John Naughton, "Hollywood at War with
-the Internet" (London) Times, 26 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778594" href="#id2778594" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
-
-
-
-See Ipsos-Insight, TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music Distribution
-(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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778616" href="#id2778616" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
+Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
+Amacom, 2002), 144–90. "In some instances . . . the impact of piracy
+on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the work will
+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." Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732273"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732513" href="#id2732513" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
+
+
+<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
+Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732536" href="#id2732536" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
+
+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 that give rise to and dominate a product area are
+frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
+for their own products. This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
+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="id2732332"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732579" href="#id2732579" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
+
+
+See Carolyn Lochhead, "Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,"
+<em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24 September 2002, A1; "Rock
+'n' Roll Suicide," <em class="citetitle">New Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42;
+Benny Evangelista, "Napster Names CEO, Secures New Financing,"
+<em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; "Napster's
+Wake-Up Call," <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
+Naughton, "Hollywood at War with the Internet" (London)
+<em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732614" href="#id2732614" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
+
+
+
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732642" href="#id2732642" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
-Amy Harmon, "Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight," New York
-Times, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778736" href="#id2778736" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
+Amy Harmon, "Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight," <em class="citetitle">New
+York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732773" href="#id2732773" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
-Se Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy,148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2778548"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778778" href="#id2778778" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
+See Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732554"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732817" href="#id2732817" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
-See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Technology Evolution and the Music
-Industry's Business Model Crisis (2003), 3. This report describes the music
-industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in
-the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape
-skull and the caption "Home taping is killing music." At the time digital
-audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a
-survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten
-had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
-Assessment, Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law,
-OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October
-1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778808" href="#id2778808" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
+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 practice of
+cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
+cassette-shape skull and the caption "Home taping is killing music." At the
+time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment
+conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers
+older than ten had taped 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732864" href="#id2732864" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
-U.S. Congress, Copyright and Home Copying, 4.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778857" href="#id2778857" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
+U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732919" href="#id2732919" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
-See Recording Industry Association of America, 2002 Yearend Statistics,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A
-later report indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry
-Association of America, Some Facts About Music Piracy, 25 June 2003,
+See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
+Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
+indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
+America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
"In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen by 26
percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music 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)."
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778902" href="#id2778902" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732964" href="#id2732964" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
Jane Black, "Big Music's Broken Record," BusinessWeek online, 13. februar
2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2778916"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778929" href="#id2778929" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
+#17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2732978"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2732996" href="#id2732996" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2778952" href="#id2778952" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733020" href="#id2733020" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779007" href="#id2779007" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733077" href="#id2733077" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
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 Press, The Quiet
-Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market (2002), available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Used records
-accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National Association of
-Recording Merchandisers, "2002 Annual Survey Results," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779159" href="#id2779159" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
+Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
+available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
+National Association of Recording Merchandisers, "2002 Annual Survey
+Results," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#20</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733227" href="#id2733227" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
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 MHP, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
-of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, All the Rave:
-The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster (New York: Crown Business,
-2003), 269–82.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779296" href="#id2779296" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733372" href="#id2733372" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779313" href="#id2779313" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733389" href="#id2733389" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779322" href="#id2779322" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733398" href="#id2733398" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
-Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, 480 F. Supp. 429,
-(C.D. Cal., 1979).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779234" href="#id2779234" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
+<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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733306" href="#id2733306" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
Valenti).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779352" href="#id2779352" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733433" href="#id2733433" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
-Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th
-Cir. 1981).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779389" href="#id2779389" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
+<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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733478" href="#id2733478" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
-Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431
-(1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779513" href="#id2779513" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
+<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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733607" href="#id2733607" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
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, was
regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
-United States Code), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17
-U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not eliminate the
-opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See Lessig, Future,
-71. See also Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag," University of
-Chicago Law Review 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2779177"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779575" href="#id2779575" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
+4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
+eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
+Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, "From Edison to
+the Broadcast Flag," <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
+70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2733250"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733695" href="#id2733695" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
-Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779616" href="#id2779616" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
+<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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733746" href="#id2733746" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, "New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software Echoes Past
-Efforts," New York Times, 22 September 2003, C3.
+Efforts," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 September 2003, C3.
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 3. "Eiendom"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Kapittel 3. "Eiendom"</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><p>
Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any expression is very
odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you put in
your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I take it,
-you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good idea you had to
-put a picnic 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?
+you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good
+<span class="emphasis"><em>idea</em></span> you had to put a picnic 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><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 in the
woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
copy the way someone else dresses), "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."<sup>[<a name="id2779675" href="#ftn.id2779675" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
+taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."<sup>[<a name="id2733818" href="#ftn.id2733818" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
</p><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
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 "property" in its
-proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2779718" href="#ftn.id2779718" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
+proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2733863" href="#ftn.id2733863" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
</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 "copyright material is
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="sect1" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
-William Shakespeare skrev "Romeo og Julie" i 1595. Skuespillet ble først
-utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde
-skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt til 1613, og stykkene han
-skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk kultur siden. Så dypt har
-verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i vår kultur at vi ofte ikke
-engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen som kommentere Kenneth
-Branaghs utgave av Henry V: "Jeg likte det, men Shakespeare er så full av
-klisjeer."
-</p><p>
-
-I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at Romeo og Julie ble skrevet, mente mange at
-"opphavsretten" kun tilhørte én eneste utgiver i London, John
-Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2779784" href="#ftn.id2779784" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson var den mest
-fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"<sup>[<a name="id2779806" href="#ftn.id2779806" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele
+William Shakespeare skrev <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i
+1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store
+skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
+til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
+kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
+vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
+som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: "Jeg likte det, men
+Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer."
+</p><p>
+
+I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
+skrevet, mente mange at "opphavsretten" kun tilhørte én eneste utgiver i
+London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2733937" href="#ftn.id2733937" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson var den
+mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"<sup>[<a name="id2733967" href="#ftn.id2733967" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele
1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde en evigvarende rett over "kopier"
av bøker de hadde fått av forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at
ingen andre kunne publisere kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på
"Statute of Anne" og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være beskyttet i
fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom forfatteren ennå
levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha en ekstraperiode
-på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2779841" href="#ftn.id2779841" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På grunn av denne
-loven, så skulle "Rome og Julie" ha falt i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da
-Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i 1774?
+på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2734005" href="#ftn.id2734005" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På grunn av denne
+loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt i det fri i
+1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i 1774?
</p><p>
Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ikke hadde bestemt hva
opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa at utgiverne hadde
en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.
</p><p>
-At det ikke fantes noen positiv lov, betydde ikke at det ikke fantes noen
-lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både til lover skapt av
-politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover (prejudikater) skapt av
-domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal leve. Vi kaller politikernes
-lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra dommerne sedvanerett."Common
-law" angir bakgrunnen for de lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving,
-vanligvis kan trumfe at bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å
-forskyve den. Og så var det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover
-hadde utløpt om felles lov beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket
-positiv.
+At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
+det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
+til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
+(prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
+leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
+dommerne sedvanerett."Common law" angir bakgrunnen for de lovgivendes
+lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at bakgrunnen bare
+hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var det virkelige
+spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov beskyttet
+opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
</p><p>
Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller "bokselgere," som de ble
</p><p>
Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
-men hvorfor ville de begrense den i det hele tatt?
+men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
</p><p>
Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
-krav. Ta romeo og Julie som et eksempel: Skuespillet ble skrevet av
-Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til verden. Han krenket
-ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en kontroversiell
-påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte han verket,
-han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage skuespill. Så
-hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta Shakespeares
-verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner finnes for å
-tillate at noen "stjeler" Shakespeares verk?
+krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
+ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
+verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
+kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
+han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
+skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
+Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
+finnes for å tillate at noen "stjeler" Shakespeares verk?
</p><p>
Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da "Statute of Anne" ble
svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å reprodusere en
bok. I 1710 var "kopi-rett" en rett til å bruke en bestemt maskin til å
replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover dette svært smale
-formålet. Denkontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et verk kunne
-brukes. Idag inkluderer retten en stor samling av restriksjoner på andres
-frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til
-å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å fremføre, og så videre.
+formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et verk kunne
+<span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor samling av
+restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv rett til å
+kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å fremføre, og
+så videre.
</p><p>
Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en monopolskinntekt. Men
monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem som "gamle
patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten"; de var "menn som derfor
-ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."<sup>[<a name="id2780070" href="#ftn.id2780070" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
+ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."<sup>[<a name="id2734241" href="#ftn.id2734241" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
-bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2780145" href="#ftn.id2780145" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2734319" href="#ftn.id2734319" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: "Statute of Anne" ga
Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, "var utgiverne ... like bekymret
-for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."<sup>[<a name="id2780205" href="#ftn.id2780205" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om forfatternes
+for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."<sup>[<a name="id2734385" href="#ftn.id2734385" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om forfatternes
rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten forfatterens verk
ga.
</p><p>
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
-kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2780230" href="#ftn.id2780230" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2734412" href="#ftn.id2734412" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons "the Conger". Han startet in karriere i
Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av standardverk
-falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".<sup>[<a name="id2780249" href="#ftn.id2780249" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for
+falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".<sup>[<a name="id2734435" href="#ftn.id2734435" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for
litterære skotter." "Blant dem," skriver professor Mark Rose, var "den unge
James Boswell som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel
-antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."<sup>[<a name="id2780266" href="#ftn.id2780266" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2780274"></a>
+antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."<sup>[<a name="id2734454" href="#ftn.id2734454" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2734462"></a>
</p><p>
Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av "de mest
populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
-eiendom." <sup>[<a name="id2780291" href="#ftn.id2780291" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var mellom 30%
+eiendom." <sup>[<a name="id2734480" href="#ftn.id2734480" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var mellom 30%
og 50% billigere enn "the Conger"s, og han baserte sin rett til denne
konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være "Statute of Anne", var falt i det
fri.
</p><p>
Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot "pirater" som
Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
-i kampen mellom Millar og Taylor.
+i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
+<em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
</p><p>
Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
Thomsons dikt "The Seasons". Millar hadde da full beskyttelse gjennom
"Statute of Anne", men etter at denne beskyttelsen var uløpt, begynte Robert
Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til sak, og hevdet han
hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva "Statute of Anne"
-sa.<sup>[<a name="id2780329" href="#ftn.id2780329" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
+sa.<sup>[<a name="id2734525" href="#ftn.id2734525" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
80392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
34592"></a><p>
Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
80408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
34607"></a><p>
Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
-Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2780421" href="#ftn.id2780421" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
-uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i Millar-saken, gikk
-Beckett til sak mot Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da
-fungerte som en slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet
-muligheten til å tolke Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år
-før.
-</p><p>
-Rettssaken Donaldson mot Beckett fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
+Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2734621" href="#ftn.id2734621" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
+<em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
+Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
+slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
+Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
+</p><p>
+Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
+<em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av "Statute of
Anne". Etter at "Statute of Anne" var blitt vedtatt, skulle den eneste
hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
</p><p>
-"Å falle i det fri". Før rettssaken Donaldson mot Beckett var det ingen klar
-oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo en allmenn
-oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble Public
-Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den lovlige
-beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk historie -
-inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var frie.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2780500"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2780506"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2780513"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2780519"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2780525"></a>
+"Å falle i det fri". Før rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
+<em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle
+i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo en allmenn oppfatning om at
+kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble Public Domain født.For første
+gang i angloamerikansk historie var den lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk
+utgått, og de største verk i engelsk historie - inkludert Shakespeare,
+Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var frie. <a class="indexterm" name="id2734717"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2734724"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2734730"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2734736"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2734742"></a>
</p><p>
Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
-Edinburgh Advertiser skrev "Ingen privatsak har noen gang fått slik
-oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt prøvet i Overhuset har
-interessert så mange enkeltmennesker." "Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren
-over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.<sup>[<a name="id2780546" href="#ftn.id2780546" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev "Ingen privatsak har noen
+gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt prøvet i
+Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker." "Stor glede i Edinburgh
+etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.<sup>[<a name="id2734771" href="#ftn.id2734771" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
-motsatt retning. Morning Chronicle skrev:
+motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Gjennom denne avgjørelsen ... er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som er
blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
-familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2780574" href="#ftn.id2780574" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2734802" href="#ftn.id2734802" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Ruinert er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å si at endringen
var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne ikke lenger kunnen
kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og utvikle seg. Kulturen
-i England var etter dette fri. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble
-ignorert, for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over
-trykkingen. Og heller ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for
-selv etter at boken var falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men i den
-betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
-liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
-utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
-formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
-valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og
-beundret. Valg i en konkurrerende sammenheng, ikke der hvor valgene var om
-hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket og hvor deres tilgang
-til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets ønsker.
+i England var etter dette <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at
+kopiretten ble ignorert, for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett
+over trykkingen. Og heller ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles,
+for selv etter at boken var falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men
+<span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger
+var kontrollert av en liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville
+dette markedet vokse og utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den
+engelske kulturen ble nå formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det
+skulle formes - gjennom valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av
+*memes* de gjentok og beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende
+sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som
+skulle være tilgjengelig for folket og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt
+av noen få, på tros av flertallets ønsker.
</p><p>
Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera. Stagehands are a
particularly funny and colorful element of an opera. During a show, they
hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and in the lighting loft. They
-make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage. <a class="indexterm" name="id2780665"></a>
+make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage. <a class="indexterm" name="id2734904"></a>
</p><p>
During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands playing
checkers. In one corner of the room was a television set. Playing on the
television set, while the stagehands played checkers and the opera company
-played Wagner, was The Simpsons. As Else judged it, this touch of cartoon
-helped capture the flavor of what was special about the scene.
+played Wagner, was <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. As Else judged it,
+this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special about
+the scene.
</p><p>
Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
-attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of The Simpsons. For of
-course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and of course, to use copyrighted
-material you need the permission of the copyright owner, unless "fair use"
-or some other privilege applies.
-</p><p>
-Else called Simpsons creator Matt Groening's office to get permission.
-Groening approved the shot. The shot was a four-and-a-halfsecond image on a
-tiny television set in the corner of the room. How could it hurt? Groening
-was happy to have it in the film, but he told Else to contact Gracie Films,
-the company that produces the program. <a class="indexterm" name="id2780700"></a>
+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 copyrighted material you need the permission of the
+copyright owner, unless "fair use" or some other privilege applies.
+</p><p>
+Else called <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> creator Matt Groening's office
+to get permission. Groening approved the shot. The shot was a
+four-and-a-halfsecond image on a tiny television set in the corner of the
+room. How could it hurt? Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he
+told Else to contact Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2734949"></a>
</p><p>
Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted to be
careful. So they told Else to contact Fox, Gracie's parent company. 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2780716"></a>
+just confirming the permission with Fox. <a class="indexterm" name="id2734964"></a>
</p><p>
Then, as Else told me, "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." And second, Fox "wanted
ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to use this four-point-five
-seconds of . . . entirely unsolicited Simpsons which was in the corner of
-the shot."
+seconds of . . . entirely unsolicited <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which
+was in the corner of the shot."
</p><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
</p><p>
"I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight," he told me. "Yes, you have
-your facts straight," she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the clip of The
-Simpsons in the corner of a shot in a documentary film about Wagner's Ring
-Cycle. And then, astonishingly, Herrera told Else, "And if you quote me,
-I'll turn you over to our attorneys." As an assistant to Herrera told Else
-later on, "They don't give a shit. They just want the money."
+your facts straight," 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 about Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then, astonishingly, Herrera told Else,
+"And if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys." As an assistant
+to Herrera told Else later on, "They don't give a shit. They just want the
+money."
</p><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 very last
minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally replaced the shot
-with a clip from another film that he had worked on, The Day After Trinity,
-from ten years before. <a class="indexterm" name="id2780764"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2780770"></a>
+with a clip from another film that he had worked on, <em class="citetitle">The Day
+After Trinity</em>, from ten years before. <a class="indexterm" name="id2735021"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2735028"></a>
</p><p>
There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the
-copyright to The Simpsons. That copyright is their property. To use that
-copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the permission of the copyright
-owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of the Simpsons copyright were
-one of the uses restricted by the law, then he would need to get the
-permission of the copyright owner before he could use the work in that
-way. And in a free market, it is the owner of the copyright who gets to set
-the price for any use that the law says the owner gets to control.
-</p><p>
-For example, "public performance" is a use of The Simpsons that the
-copyright owner gets to control. If you take a selection of favorite
-episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets to come see "My
-Favorite Simpsons," then you need to get permission from the copyright
-owner. And the copyright owner (rightly, in my view) can charge whatever she
-wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by the law.
+copyright to <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. That copyright is their
+property. To use that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the
+permission of the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of
+the <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> copyright were one of the uses
+restricted by the law, then he would need to get the permission of the
+copyright owner before he could use the work in that way. And in a free
+market, it is the owner of the copyright who gets to set the price for any
+use that the law says the owner gets to control.
+</p><p>
+For example, "public performance" is a use of <em class="citetitle">The
+Simpsons</em> that the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a
+selection of favorite episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets
+to come see "My Favorite <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>," then you need to
+get permission from the copyright owner. And the copyright owner (rightly,
+in my view) can charge whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's
+her right, as set by the law.
</p><p>
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought
-is "fair use."<sup>[<a name="id2780796" href="#ftn.id2780796" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Else's use of just 4.5
-seconds of an indirect shot of a Simpsons episode is clearly a fair use of
-The Simpsons—and fair use does not require the permission of anyone.
+is "fair use."<sup>[<a name="id2735075" href="#ftn.id2735075" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> 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><p>
So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon "fair use." Here's his reply:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-The Simpsons fiasco was for me a great lesson in the gulf between what
-lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what is crushingly
-relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make and broadcast
-documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was "clearly fair use" in an
-absolute legal sense. But I couldn't rely on the concept in any concrete
-way. Here's why:
+The <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> fiasco was for me a great lesson in the
+gulf between what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what
+is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make
+and broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was "clearly fair
+use" 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"><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 tracking down and
-stopping unlicensed Simpsons usage, just as George Lucas had a very high
-profile litigating Star Wars usage. So I decided to play by the book,
-thinking that we would be granted free or cheap license to four seconds of
-Simpsons. As a documentary producer working to exhaustion on a shoestring,
-the last thing I wanted was to risk legal trouble, even nuisance legal
-trouble, and even to defend a principle. <a class="indexterm" name="id2780872"></a>
+stopping unlicensed <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> usage, just as George
+Lucas had a very high profile litigating <em class="citetitle">Star Wars</em>
+usage. So I decided to play by the book, thinking that we would be granted
+free or cheap license to four seconds of <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>. As
+a documentary producer working to exhaustion on a shoestring, the last thing
+I wanted was to risk legal trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to
+defend a principle. <a class="indexterm" name="id2735164"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect
publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has
matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or not.
-</p></div><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
80936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2780942"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35228"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2735235"></a><p>
In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an
innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
anticipation of the power of networks.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
80957"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35250"></a><p>
Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
emerging market for CD-ROM technology—not to distribute film, but to
do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult. In 1993, he
work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
and interviews with figures important to his career.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
80966"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35258"></a><p>
At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
permission for that content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
81000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35292"></a><p>
Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. "Our goal was
that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's films," Alben
told me. It was here that the problem arose. "No one had ever really done
this before," Alben explained. "No one had ever tried to do this in the
context of an artistic look at an actor's career."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
81015"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35308"></a><p>
Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked,
"Well, what will it take?"
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
81027"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35319"></a><p>
Alben replied, "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." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."<sup>[<a name="id2781039" href="#ftn.id2781039" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
+use in these film clips." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."<sup>[<a name="id2735331" href="#ftn.id2735331" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
</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 could have a claim
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips. We made some
artistic decisions about what film clips to include—of course we were
-going to use the "Make my day" clip from Dirty Harry. But you then need to
-get the guy on the ground who's wiggling under the gun and you need to get
-his permission. And then you have to decide what you are going to pay him.
+going to use the "Make my day" clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
+Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
+wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission. And then you
+have to decide what you are going to pay him.
</p><p>
crashing through the 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="id27
81096"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35392"></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, "Hey, can I pay you $600
his team had cleared the rights to this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint
Eastwood's career.
</p><p>
-It was one year later—"and even then we weren't sure whether we were
-totally in the clear."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
81130"></a><p>
+It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later—"and even then we weren't
+sure whether we were totally in the clear."
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35429"></a><p>
Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
and it sold very well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
81164"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2781170"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35463"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2735470"></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, "There is nothing so
useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
-all."<sup>[<a name="id2781184" href="#ftn.id2781184" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked Alben,
+all."<sup>[<a name="id2735483" href="#ftn.id2735483" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked Alben,
that this is the way a new work has to be made?
</p><p>
For, as he acknowledged, "very few . . . have the time and resources, and
used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I don't
think that that person . . . should be compensated for that.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Or at least, is this how the artist should be compensated? Would it make
-sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of statutory license that someone
-could pay and be free to make derivative use of clips like this? Did it
-really make sense that a follow-on creator would have to track down every
-artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit permission from each?
-Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of the creative process
-could be made to be more clean?
+Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
+compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
+statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
+of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
+have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
+permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
+the creative process could be made to be more clean?
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to cost
me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for money," then
it becomes difficult to put one of these things together.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
81277"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35571"></a><p>
Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
Fairbank, had produced.
</p><p>
-Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
-tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien 60
-Minutes. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti minutter
-stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
81327"></a><p>
+The video was a brilliant collage of film from every period in the 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="id27
35620"></a><p>
Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
tale med et spørsmål: "Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp brutt
i dette rommet?"
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
81347"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
35640"></a><p>
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 law. Of course,
politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
-and music. <a class="indexterm" name="id2781375"></a>
+and music. <a class="indexterm" name="id2735682"></a>
</p><p>
All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
to be "legal," the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
</p><p>
In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
-the comic genius of Saturday Night Live and Austin Powers. According to the
-announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work together to form a "unique
-filmmaking pact." Under the agreement, DreamWorks "will acquire the rights
-to existing motion picture hits and classics, write new storylines
-and—with the use of stateof-the-art digital technology—insert
-Myers and other actors into the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece
-of entertainment."
+the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
+Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
+together to form a "unique filmmaking pact." Under the agreement, DreamWorks
+"will acquire the rights to existing motion picture hits and classics, write
+new storylines and—with the use of stateof-the-art digital
+technology—insert Myers and other actors into the film, thereby
+creating an entirely new piece of entertainment."
</p><p>
The announcement called this "film sampling." As Myers explained, "Film
Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin on existing films and
changed.
</p><p>
This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated. In
-the dystopia described in 1984, old newspapers were constantly updated to
-assure that the current view of the world, approved of by the government,
-was not contradicted by previous news reports.
+the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
+constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
+by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id2781548" href="#ftn.id2781548" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
+forget.<sup>[<a name="id2735854" href="#ftn.id2735854" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
We take it 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
something close to the truth.
</p><p>
It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
-it. That's not quite correct. We all forget history. The key is whether we
-have a way to go back to rediscover what we forget. More directly, the key
-is whether an objective past can keep us honest. Libraries help do that, by
-collecting content and keeping it, for schoolchildren, for researchers, for
-grandma. A free society presumes this knowedge.
+it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
+history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
+forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
+honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
+schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
+knowedge.
</p><p>
The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
-between the two, the 60 Minutes episode that came out after it . . . it
-would be almost impossible. . . . Those materials are almost
-unfindable. . . .
+between the two, the <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><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
more than 5,475 films deposited and "borrowed back." 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.<sup>[<a name="id2781610" href="#ftn.id2781610" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
+company.<sup>[<a name="id2735917" href="#ftn.id2735917" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
access to this important part of our culture. Want to see a copy of the
"Duck and Cover" film that instructed children how to save themselves in the
middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can download the film
-in a few minutes—for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2781712"></a>
+in a few minutes—for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2736025"></a>
</p><p>
Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
even if that information is no longer sold.
</p><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<sup>[<a name="id2781812" href="#ftn.id2781812" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
+quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2736124" href="#ftn.id2736124" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). 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 are
thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
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. When the commercial life of creative
-property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it does, Kahle and
-his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and culture, remains
-perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand it; some to
-criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create the past
-for the future. These technologies promise something that had become
-unimaginable for much of our past—a future for our past. The
-technology of digital arts could make the dream of the Library of Alexandria
-real again.
+libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
+life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
+does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
+culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
+it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
+the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
+become unimaginable for much of our past—a future
+<span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
+the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
</p><p>
Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
on Air Force One after the assassination of President 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2781912"></a>
+Washington. <a class="indexterm" name="id2736245"></a>
</p><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
made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
-Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. <a class="indexterm" name="id2781966"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2781971"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2781978"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2781984"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2781990"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2781996"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2782003"></a>
+Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. <a class="indexterm" name="id2736304"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736309"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2736316"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736322"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736328"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736334"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2736341"></a>
</p><p>
No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
-animates this entire debate: Creative property owners must be accorded the
-same rights and protection resident in all other property owners in the
-nation. 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.<sup>[<a name="id2782055" href="#ftn.id2782055" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
+animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property 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.<sup>[<a name="id2736407" href="#ftn.id2736407" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
-made by anyone who is serious in this debate than this claim of
-Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is perhaps the
-nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and scope of
-"creative property." His views have no reasonable connection to our actual
-legal tradition, even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly
-redefined that tradition, at least in Washington.
+made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
+claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
+perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
+scope of "creative property." His views have <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span>
+reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition, even if the subtle pull
+of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that tradition, at least in
+Washington.
</p><p>
While "creative property" is certainly "property" in a nerdy and precise
-sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<sup>[<a name="id2782100" href="#ftn.id2782100" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that "creative
+sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<sup>[<a name="id2736459" href="#ftn.id2736459" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that "creative
property owners" have been "accorded the same rights and protection resident
in all other property owners." Indeed, if creative property owners were
given the same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a
house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm—it is required,
under the Fifth Amendment's "Takings Clause," to pay you "just compensation"
for that taking. The Constitution thus guarantees that property is, in a
-certain sense, sacred. It cannot ever be taken from the property owner
-unless the government pays for the privilege.
+certain sense, sacred. It cannot <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the
+property owner unless the government pays for the privilege.
</p><p>
Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
calls "creative property." In the clause granting Congress the power to
-create "creative property," the Constitution requires that after a "limited
-time," Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
-"creative property" free to the public domain. Yet when Congress does this,
-when the expiration of a copyright term "takes" your copyright and turns it
-over to the public domain, Congress does not have any obligation to pay
-"just compensation" for this "taking." Instead, the same Constitution that
-requires compensation for your land requires that you lose your "creative
-property" right without any compensation at all.
+create "creative property," the Constitution <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span>
+that after a "limited time," Congress take back the rights that it has
+granted and set the "creative property" free to the public domain. Yet when
+Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term "takes" your
+copyright and turns it over to the public domain, Congress does not have any
+obligation to pay "just compensation" for this "taking." Instead, the same
+Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
+your "creative property" right without any compensation at all.
</p><p>
The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
</p><p>
Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
-try to understand why. Why did the framers, fanatical property types that
-they were, reject the claim that 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?
+try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
+property types that they were, reject the claim that 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><p>
To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
these "creative property" rights, and the control that they enabled. Once
we see clearly how differently these rights have been defined, we will be in
a better position to ask the question that should be at the core of this
-war: Not whether creative property should be protected, but how. Not whether
-we will enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but
-what the particular mix of rights ought to be. Not whether artists should be
-paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that artists get paid need
-also control how culture develops.
+war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property should be protected,
+but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will enforce the rights the law
+gives to creative-property owners, but what the particular mix of rights
+ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> artists should be paid, but
+whether institutions designed to assure that artists get paid need also
+control how culture develops.
</p><p>
To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
-narrow language of the law allows. In Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, I
-used a simple model to capture this more general 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:
+narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
+Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
+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>Figur 3.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
the right or regulation.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
and posting it on the Web, you can be punished 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="id2782018"></a>
+by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id2736356"></a>
</p><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
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.<sup>[<a name="id2782394" href="#ftn.id2782394" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
+in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2736783" href="#ftn.id2736783" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> 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 drive more slowly. The law
more 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="id27
82400"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
36803"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><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.<sup>[<a name="id2782452" href="#ftn.id2782452" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
+modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2736848" href="#ftn.id2736848" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
</p><div class="sect2" title="Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="hollywood"></a>Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h3></div></div></div><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
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.<sup>[<a name="id2782681" href="#ftn.id2782681" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
+cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2737045" href="#ftn.id2737045" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
-trucks from roads for the purpose of protecting the railroads? Closer to the
-subject of this book, remote channel changers have weakened the "stickiness"
-of television advertising (if a boring commercial comes on the TV, the
-remote makes it easy to surf ), and it may well be that this change has
-weakened the television advertising market. But does anyone believe we
-should regulate remotes to reinforce commercial television? (Maybe by
-limiting them to function only once a second, or to switch to only ten
-channels within an hour?)
+trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
+railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
+weakened the "stickiness" of television advertising (if a boring commercial
+comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and it may well be that
+this change has weakened the television advertising market. But does anyone
+believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce commercial television?
+(Maybe by limiting them to function only once a second, or to switch to only
+ten channels within an hour?)
</p><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 did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
patents, "established companies have an interest in excluding future
-competitors."<sup>[<a name="id2782726" href="#ftn.id2782726" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
+competitors."<sup>[<a name="id2737094" href="#ftn.id2737094" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> 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 not only the
market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2782734"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2737113"></a>
</p><p>
Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
-increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id2782819"></a>
+increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id2737190"></a>
</p><p>
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="id2782836"></a><p>
-But in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which argued that DDT,
-whatever its primary benefits, was also having unintended environmental
-consequences. Birds were losing the ability to reproduce. Whole chains of
-the ecology were being destroyed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2782849"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2782855"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2737208"></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
+reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2737224"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2737230"></a>
</p><p>
No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
appeals when he argues that we need an "environmentalism" for
-culture.<sup>[<a name="id2782885" href="#ftn.id2782885" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
+culture.<sup>[<a name="id2737260" href="#ftn.id2737260" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> 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 "for free." The point is that some of the
</p><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="id27
82926"></a></div><div class="sect2" title="Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="beginnings"></a>Opphav</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
37304"></a></div><div class="sect2" title="Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="beginnings"></a>Opphav</h3></div></div></div><p>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of "creative
property" rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English aim to
to their respective Writings and Discoveries. We can call this the
"Progress Clause," for notice what this clause does not say. It does not say
Congress has the power to grant "creative property rights." It says that
-Congress has the power to promote progress. 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.
+Congress has the power <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><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
chapter 6, the English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a
federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
states—including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
-select the president. In each case, a structure built checks and balances
-into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent otherwise inevitable
-concentrations of power.
+select the president. In each 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><p>
I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call "copyright"
today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they ever
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.<sup>[<a name="id2783072" href="#ftn.id2783072" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
+rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2737464" href="#ftn.id2737464" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> 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
opphavsrettsregimet. Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
-14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2783132" href="#ftn.id2783132" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
+14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2737535" href="#ftn.id2737535" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
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.<sup>[<a name="id2783190" href="#ftn.id2783190" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
+work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2737601" href="#ftn.id2737601" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
</p><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.<sup>[<a name="id2783201" href="#ftn.id2783201" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
+print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2737630" href="#ftn.id2737630" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
-books are no longer effectively controlled by copyright. The only practical
-commercial use of the books at that time is to sell the books as used books;
-that use—because it does not involve publication—is effectively
-free.
+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 is to
+sell the books as used books; that use—because it does not involve
+publication—is effectively free.
</p><p>
In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
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.<sup>[<a name="id2783304" href="#ftn.id2783304" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
+the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2737725" href="#ftn.id2737725" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
</p></div><div class="sect2" title="Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="lawscope"></a>Loven: Virkeområde</h3></div></div></div><p>
The "scope" of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law. The
scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those changes are not
there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
-copyright. And for most of the history of American copyright law, there was
-a requirement that works be deposited with the government before a copyright
-could be secured.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most 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><p>
The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
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.<sup>[<a name="id2783426" href="#ftn.id2783426" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
+United States.<sup>[<a name="id2737862" href="#ftn.id2737862" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> 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.
</p><p>
</p><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, every creative act that's reduced to a
-tangible form—all of this is automatically copyrighted. There is no
-need to register or mark your work. The protection follows the creation, not
-the steps you take to protect it.
+note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
+that's reduced to a tangible form—all of this is automatically
+copyrighted. There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
+follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
</p><p>
That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
the verbatim original work.
</p><p>
-
In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
culture—at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
-work. But whatever that 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.<sup>[<a name="id2783509" href="#ftn.id2783509" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup> Whether or
-not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is involved is
-fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
+work. But whatever <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.<sup>[<a name="id2737943" href="#ftn.id2737943" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
+Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
+involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id2783548" href="#ftn.id2783548" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
+book.<sup>[<a name="id2737989" href="#ftn.id2737989" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
creative work are treated the same.
</p><p>
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
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.<sup>[<a name="id2783595" href="#ftn.id2783595" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
+and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2738040" href="#ftn.id2738040" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
-"Copies." That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for copyright law to
-regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's argument at the start of this chapter,
-that "creative property" deserves the "same rights" as all other property,
-it is the obvious that we need to be most careful about. For while it may be
-obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were the obvious
-trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious that in the
-world with the Internet, copies should not be the trigger for copyright
-law. More precisely, they should not always be the trigger for copyright
-law.
+"Copies." That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
+<span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
+argument at the start of this chapter, that "creative property" deserves the
+"same rights" as all other property, it is the <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span>
+that we need to be most careful about. For while it may be obvious that in
+the world before the Internet, copies were the obvious trigger for copyright
+law, upon reflection, it should be obvious that in the world with the
+Internet, 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><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,<sup>[<a name="id2783644" href="#ftn.id2783644" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
+copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2738101" href="#ftn.id2738101" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
law.
Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
-its potential uses. Most of these uses are unregulated by copyright law,
-because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book, that act is not
-regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book, that act is not
-regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act is not regulated
-(copyright law expressly states that after the first sale of a book, the
-copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the disposition of the
-book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a lamp or let your
-puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright law, because
-those acts do not make a copy.
+its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
+by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
+that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
+that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
+is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
+of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
+disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
+lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
+law, because those acts do not make a copy.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1531.png" alt="Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
are nonetheless deemed "fair" regardless of the copyright owner's views.
</p><p>
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use of a
-copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2783602" href="#ftn.id2783602" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
+copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2738047" href="#ftn.id2738047" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> 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 regulated. No longer is
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 copyright-related argument that the copyright owner could make to
-control that use of her book. Copyright law would have nothing to say about
-whether you read the book once, ten times, or every night before you went to
-bed. None of those instances of use—reading— could be regulated
-by copyright law because none of those uses produced a copy.
+plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
+owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
+nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
+night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
+use—reading— could be regulated by copyright law because none of
+those uses produced a copy.
</p><p>
But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
-only once a month, then copyright law would aid the copyright owner in
-exercising this degree of control, because of the accidental feature of
-copyright law that triggers its application upon there being a copy. Now if
-you read the book ten times and the license says you may read it only five
-times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion of it) beyond the
-fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to the copyright
-owner's wish.
+only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
+copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
+accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
+being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
+may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
+of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
+the copyright owner's wish.
</p><p>
There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
</p><p>
Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
-commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate any transformation
-you make of creative work using a machine. "Copy and paste" and "cut and
-paste" become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others
-exposes the tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification. However
-troubling the expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is
-extraordinarily troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative
-work.
+commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
+<span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
+machine. "Copy and paste" and "cut and paste" become crimes. Tinkering with
+a story and releasing it to others exposes the tinkerer to at least a
+requirement of justification. However troubling the expansion with respect
+to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily troubling with respect
+to transformative uses of creative work.
</p><p>
Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
use—never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
-when the vast majority of uses are unregulated. But when everything becomes
-presumptively regulated, then the protections of fair use are not enough.
+when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
+when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
+fair use are not enough.
</p><p>
The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
business of making "trailer" advertisements for movies available to video
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="id27
84073"></a><p>
-Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
-Brothers) og Warner Brothers. Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
-Casablanca. Warner Brothers protesterte. De skrev et ufint brev til
-Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse juridiske
-konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2784092" href="#ftn.id2784092" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
-</p><p>
-Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt. De advarte
-Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene "var brødre lenge før dere var
-det".<sup>[<a name="id2784112" href="#ftn.id2784112" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor ordet
-Brothers, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på å forsøke å kontrollere
-Casablanca, så ville Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over Brothers.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
38557"></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.<sup>[<a name="id2738574" href="#ftn.id2738574" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
+</p><p>
+This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned Warner Brothers
+that the Marx Brothers "were brothers long before you were."<sup>[<a name="id2738592" href="#ftn.id2738592" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> 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 Brothers would
+insist on control over <em class="citetitle">brothers</em>.
</p><p>
Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
-Middlemarch, for example, is in the public domain. Some of them reproduce
-content that is not in the public domain: My own book The Future of Ideas is
-not yet within the public domain. Consider Middlemarch first. If you click
-on my e-book copy of Middlemarch, you'll see a fancy cover, and then a
-button at the bottom called Permissions.
+<em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
+Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
+<em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
+domain. Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
+my e-book copy of <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-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1611.png" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><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.
of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
text to the clipboard.) I also have the permission to print ten pages from
the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
-button to hear Middlemarch read aloud through the computer.
+button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
+computer.
</p><p>
Here's the e-book for another work in the public domain (including the
-translation): Aristotle's Politics.
+translation): Aristotle's <em class="citetitle">Politics</em>.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.14. E-book of Aristotle;s "Politics"</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt='E-book of Aristotle;s "Politics"'></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>Figur 3.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politics".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politics".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
-e-book version of my last book, The Future of Ideas:
+e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt='List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
boken!
the publisher has the power to control how 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.<sup>[<a name="id2784311" href="#ftn.id2784311" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my
-e-book of Middlemarch 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 publisher to control how I use the book on
-my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
+is no such copyright power.<sup>[<a name="id2738821" href="#ftn.id2738821" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> 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 publisher to control
+how I use the book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would
+enable.
</p><p>
The control comes instead from the code—from the technology within
which the e-book "lives." Though the e-book says that these are permissions,
</p><p>
-These are controls, not permissions. Imagine a world where the Marx Brothers
-sold word processing software that, when you tried to type "Warner
-Brothers," erased "Brothers" from the sentence.
+These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
+where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
+to type "Warner Brothers," erased "Brothers" from the sentence.
</p><p>
-This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright law as copyright
-code. The controls over access to content will not be controls that are
-ratified by courts; the controls over access to content will be controls
-that are coded by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into
-the law are always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built
-into the technology have no similar built-in check.
+This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
+<span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
+controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
+courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
+by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
+always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
+technology have no similar built-in check.
</p><p>
How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
</p><p>
Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
-Adobe site was a copy of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. This wonderful
-book is in the public domain. Yet when you clicked on Permissions for that
-book, you got the following report:
+Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
+Wonderland</em>. This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
+when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer "dog" to make it do new
tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
</p><p>
-If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word hack has
-a particularly unfriendly connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or
-weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror movies do even worse. But to programmers, or
-coders, as I call them, hack is a much more positive term. Hack just means
-code that enables the program to do something it wasn't originally intended
-or enabled to do. If you buy a new printer for an old computer, you might
-find the old computer doesn't run, or "drive," the printer. If you
-discovered that, you'd later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by
-someone who has written a driver to enable the computer to drive the printer
-you just bought.
+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 horror
+movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
+<em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
+term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
+to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
+new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
+run, or "drive," the printer. If you discovered that, you'd later be happy
+to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a driver to enable
+the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
</p><p>
Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
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="id27
84533"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
39076"></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
dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
-that the owner of aibopet.com thought, What possible problem could there be
-with teaching a robot dog to dance?
+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><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
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.<sup>[<a name="id2784585" href="#ftn.id2784585" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
+But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2739121" href="#ftn.id2739121" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> 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
Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
response was to find technologies that might compensate. These new
technologies would be copyright protection technologies— technologies
to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
-were designed as code to modify the original code of the Internet, to
-reestablish some protection for copyright owners.
+were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
+<span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
+for copyright owners.
</p><p>
The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
-designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say, legal code
-intended to buttress software code which itself was intended to support the
-legal code of copyright.
+designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
+<span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
+code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
+code of copyright</em></span>.
</p><p>
But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
-"Mr. Rogers," for example, had testified in that case that he wanted people
-to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
+"<em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>," for example, had testified in that case
+that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
"Neighborhood" at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it's
important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions."
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.<sup>[<a name="id2784796" href="#ftn.id2784796" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
+way, is important.<sup>[<a name="id2739370" href="#ftn.id2739370" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 3.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><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: No one ever died from copyright
-circumvention. 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.
+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><p>
The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
erasing.
</p><p>
-This is how code becomes law. The controls built into the technology of copy
-and access protection become rules the violation of which is also a
-violation of the law. In this way, the code extends the law—increasing
-its regulation, even if the subject it regulates (activities that would
-otherwise plainly constitute fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code
-becomes law; code extends the law; code thus extends the control that
-copyright owners effect—at least for those copyright holders with the
-lawyers who can write the nasty letters that Felten and aibopet.com
-received.
+This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
+controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
+rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
+the code extends the law—increasing its regulation, even if the
+subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
+fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
+law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect—at
+least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
+letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
</p><p>
There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
</p><p>
-For example, imagine you were part of a Star Trek fan club. You 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.<sup>[<a name="id2784914" href="#ftn.id2784914" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
+For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
+club. You 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.<sup>[<a name="id2739509" href="#ftn.id2739509" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
</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
three companies control more than percent of the media.
</p><p>
Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
85015"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
39613"></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, "five
-companies control 85 percent of our media sources."<sup>[<a name="id2785026" href="#ftn.id2785026" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording labels of Universal Music Group,
+companies control 85 percent of our media sources."<sup>[<a name="id2739624" href="#ftn.id2739624" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2785038" href="#ftn.id2785038" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The
+percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2739636" href="#ftn.id2739636" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The
"five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable
-subscribers nationwide."<sup>[<a name="id2785048" href="#ftn.id2785048" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2785056"></a>
+subscribers nationwide."<sup>[<a name="id2739649" href="#ftn.id2739649" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2739660"></a>
</p><p>
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
-seventy-five stations. Today one company owns more than 1,200 stations.
-During that period of consolidation, the total number of radio owners
-dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most 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.
+seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
+1,200 stations. During that period of consolidation, the total number of
+radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most 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><p>
Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well. Today, there are
six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
</p><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, <a class="indexterm" name="id2785085"></a>
+article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2739691"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
integration. They supply content—Fox movies . . . Fox TV shows
distribution system 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.<sup>[<a name="id2785109" href="#ftn.id2785109" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
+system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2739716" href="#ftn.id2739716" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
</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 owning as many
</p><p>
Here's a representative story that begins to suggest how this integration
may matter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
85178"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2785184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2785190"></a><p>
-In 1969, Norman Lear created a pilot for All in the Family. 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 first. ABC
-was exasperated. You're missing the point, they told Lear. We wanted less
-edgy, not more.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
39786"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2739792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2739798"></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 first. ABC was exasperated. You're missing the point, they
+told Lear. We wanted less edgy, not more.
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id2785211" href="#ftn.id2785211" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
+Lear held assured an independence from network control.<sup>[<a name="id2739822" href="#ftn.id2739822" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last year,
the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
quintupled to 77 percent." "In 1992, 16 new series were produced
-independently of conglomerate control, last year there was one."<sup>[<a name="id2785240" href="#ftn.id2785240" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was
+independently of conglomerate control, last year there was one."<sup>[<a name="id2739852" href="#ftn.id2739852" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was
owned by the networks that ran it. "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%."<sup>[<a name="id2785282" href="#ftn.id2785282" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2785290"></a><p>
-Today, another Norman Lear with another All in the Family 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.
+hours per week produced by independent studios decreased 63%."<sup>[<a name="id2739896" href="#ftn.id2739896" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2739903"></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><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, <a class="indexterm" name="id2785308"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2785315"></a>
+Diller said to Bill Moyers, <a class="indexterm" name="id2739925"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2739931"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
-you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2785333" href="#ftn.id2785333" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
+you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2739949" href="#ftn.id2739949" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous. Increasingly
consequence—not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
the environment for a democracy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
85354"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
39984"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the "Innovator's
Dilemma": 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.<sup>[<a name="id2785382" href="#ftn.id2785382" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only don't, but should not,
+would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<sup>[<a name="id2740001" href="#ftn.id2740001" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> 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="id2785390"></a>
+little sprinting. <a class="indexterm" name="id2740030"></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 do. The efficiencies
the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
crucial debate the opportunity to present its case. And the courts will
-defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2785504" href="#ftn.id2785504" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
+defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2740144" href="#ftn.id2740144" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
</p><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
time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
-similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be reductions in
-the scope of copyright, in response to the extraordinary increase in control
-that technology and the market enable.
+similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
+<span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
+the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
</p><p>
For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
-together they produce an astonishing conclusion: Never in our history have
-fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of our culture
-than now.
+together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
+history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
+our culture than now</em></span>.
</p><p>
Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
-networks. Never has copyright protected such a wide range of rights, against
-as broad a range of actors, for a term that was remotely as long. This form
-of regulation—a tiny regulation of a tiny part of the creative energy
-of a nation at the founding—is now a massive regulation of the overall
-creative process. Law plus technology plus the market now interact to turn
-this historically benign regulation into the most significant regulation of
-culture that our free society has known.<sup>[<a name="id2785679" href="#ftn.id2785679" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
+networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
+range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
+remotely as long. This form of regulation—a tiny regulation of a tiny
+part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding—is now a
+massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
+the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
+most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
+known.<sup>[<a name="id2740328" href="#ftn.id2740328" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
</p><p>
The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
copyright is a kind of "property," and of course, as with any property, the
state ought to protect it. But first impressions notwithstanding,
-historically, this property right (as with all property rights<sup>[<a name="id2786024" href="#ftn.id2786024" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>) has been crafted to balance the important need to
+historically, this property right (as with all property rights<sup>[<a name="id2740673" href="#ftn.id2740673" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>) has been crafted to balance the important need to
give authors and artists incentives with the equally important need to
assure access to creative work. This balance has always been struck in light
of new technologies. And for almost half of our tradition, the "copyright"
-did not control at all the freedom of others to build upon or transform a
-creative work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our
-country consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
+did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> the freedom of others to build
+upon or transform a creative work. American culture was born free, and for
+almost 180 years our country consistently protected a vibrant and rich free
+culture.
</p><p>
We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
with a lawyer.
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779675" href="#id2779675" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733818" href="#id2733818" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
-Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (13 August 1813) in The
-Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6 (Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery
-Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333–34.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779718" href="#id2779718" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733863" href="#id2733863" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not attach
to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to
which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff, "What
-Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together," Arizona Law Review 45
-(2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779784" href="#id2779784" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
+Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together," <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law
+Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733937" href="#id2733937" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære
storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke"ferdige versjoner" av
-klassiske verk. I tillegg til Romeo og Julie, utga han en utrolig rekke
-liste av verk som ennå er hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de
-samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se
-Keith Walker: "Jacob Tonson, Bookseller," American Scholar 61:3 (1992):
-424-31.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779806" href="#id2779806" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
+klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em>, utga
+han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er hjertet av den engelske
+kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, og
+John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: "Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,"
+<em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424-31.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2733967" href="#id2733967" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
-Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Nashville:
-Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), 151–52.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2779841" href="#id2779841" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
+Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
+Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
+151–52.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734005" href="#id2734005" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
-en "opphavsrettslov." Se Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 40.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2779850"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780070" href="#id2780070" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
+en "opphavsrettslov." Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
+Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2734016"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734241" href="#id2734241" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
-Philip Wittenberg, The Protection and Marketing of Literary Property (New
-York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780145" href="#id2780145" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
+
+Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
+Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734319" href="#id2734319" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in 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, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)
-(No. 01-618).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780205" href="#id2780205" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734385" href="#id2734385" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
-Lyman Ray Patterson, "Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use," Vanderbilt Law
-Review 40 (1987): 28. For en fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se
-Vaidhyanathan, 37–48. <a class="indexterm" name="id2779813"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780230" href="#id2780230" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
+Lyman Ray Patterson, "Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,"
+<em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
+fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2733978"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734412" href="#id2734412" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
-For a compelling account, see David Saunders, Authorship and Copyright
-(London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780249" href="#id2780249" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
+For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
+Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734435" href="#id2734435" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
-Mark Rose, Authors and Owners (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993),
-92.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780266" href="#id2780266" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
+Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
+University Press, 1993), 92.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734454" href="#id2734454" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780291" href="#id2780291" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734480" href="#id2734480" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
-Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective, 167 (quoting
-Borwell).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780329" href="#id2780329" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
+Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
+Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734525" href="#id2734525" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
-Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," Wayne Law Review 29 (1983):
-1152.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780421" href="#id2780421" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
+Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
+Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734621" href="#id2734621" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780546" href="#id2780546" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734771" href="#id2734771" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780574" href="#id2780574" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2734802" href="#id2734802" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2780796" href="#id2780796" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735075" href="#id2735075" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
For an excellent argument that such use is "fair use," but that lawyers
don't permit recognition that it is "fair use," see Richard A. Posner with
-William F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of Eldred "
-(draft on file with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August
-2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2781039" href="#id2781039" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
+William F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of
+<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>" (draft on file with author), University of
+Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735331" href="#id2735331" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
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 "Rip, Mix, Burn" creativity, as
-this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2780968"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2781184" href="#id2781184" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
+this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2735260"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735483" href="#id2735483" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
-U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management, Seven Steps to
-Performance-Based Services Acquisition, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2781548" href="#id2781548" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735854" href="#id2735854" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
stated, "Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." That was later changed,
without notice, to "Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." E-mail from
Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2781610" href="#id2781610" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2735917" href="#id2735917" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
Doug Herrick, "Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at the
-Library of Congress," Film Library Quarterly 13 nos. 2–3 (1980): 5;
-Anthony Slide, Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the
-United States ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 1992), 36.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2781812" href="#id2781812" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+Library of Congress," <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2736124" href="#id2736124" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
Dave Barns, "Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar
-Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business," Chicago Tribune, 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, "The First Sale
-Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks," Boston College Law Review 44
-(2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2782055" href="#id2782055" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
+Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business," <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, "The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,"
+<em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2736407" href="#id2736407" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R. 4794,
Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2782100" href="#id2782100" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2736459" href="#id2736459" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
Lawyers speak of "property" not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle of
rights that are sometimes associated with a particular object. Thus, my
"property right" to my car gives me the right to exclusive use, but not the
right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the best effort to connect the
-ordinary meaning of "property" to "lawyer talk," see Bruce Ackerman, Private
-Property and the Constitution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
-26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2782394" href="#id2782394" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
+ordinary meaning of "property" to "lawyer talk," see Bruce Ackerman,
+<em class="citetitle">Private Property and the Constitution</em> (New Haven:
+Yale University Press, 1977), 26–27.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2736783" href="#id2736783" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
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 do. Law's
only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
-more timidly expressed. See Lawrence Lessig, Code: And Other Laws of
-Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95; Lawrence Lessig, "The
-New Chicago School," Journal of Legal Studies, June 1998.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2782452" href="#id2782452" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
+more timidly expressed. See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
+Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95;
+Lawrence Lessig, "The New Chicago School," <em class="citetitle">Journal of Legal
+Studies</em>, June 1998.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2736848" href="#id2736848" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
Some people object to this way of talking about "liberty." They object
because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any
of ordinary life. I don't mean to deny the value in this narrower view,
which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do, however, mean to argue
against any insistence that this narrower view is the only proper view of
-liberty. As I argued in Code, we come from a long tradition of political
-thought with a broader focus than the narrow question of what the government
-did when. John Stuart Mill defended freedom of speech, for example, from
-the tyranny of narrow minds, not from the fear of government prosecution;
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.
-John R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from
-constraints imposed by the market; John R. Commons, "The Right to Work," in
-Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., John R. Commons: Selected
-Essays (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans with Disabilities Act
-increases the liberty of people with physical disabilities by changing the
-architecture of certain public places, thereby making access to those places
-easier; 42 United States Code, section 12101 (2000). Each of these
-interventions to change existing 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="id2782518"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2782681" href="#id2782681" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
+liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we come from a long
+tradition of political thought with a broader focus than the narrow question
+of what the government did when. John Stuart Mill defended freedom of
+speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds, not from the fear of
+government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On Liberty</em>
+(Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19. John R. Commons famously
+defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints imposed by the
+market; John R. Commons, "The Right to Work," in Malcom Rutherford and
+Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons: Selected
+Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans with
+Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical disabilities
+by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby making access
+to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>,
+section 12101 (2000). Each of these interventions to change existing
+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="id2736895"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737045" href="#id2737045" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
See Geoffrey Smith, "Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?"
analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger, "Can
Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?" Forbes.com, 6 October 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #24</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2782726" href="#id2782726" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737094" href="#id2737094" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
-Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars (New York: Wiley, 1994), 170–71.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2782885" href="#id2782885" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
+Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
+1994), 170–71.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737260" href="#id2737260" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
-Se, for eksempel, James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
-Environmentalism for the Net?" Duke Law Journal 47 (1997): 87.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783072" href="#id2783072" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
+See, for example, James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
+Environmentalism for the Net?" <em class="citetitle">Duke Law Journal</em> 47
+(1997): 87.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737464" href="#id2737464" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
-William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the
-United States (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953), vol. 1,
-485–86: "extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the supreme Law of
-the Land,' the perpetual rights which authors had, or were supposed by some
-to have, under the Common Law" (emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2782735"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783132" href="#id2783132" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
+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, 485–86: "extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the supreme
+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>" (emphasis
+added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2737480"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737535" href="#id2737535" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
-1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, A History of
-Book Publishing in the United States, vol. 1, The Creation of an Industry,
-1630–1865 (New York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints
-recorded before 1790, only twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act;
-William J. Maher, Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright
-Law of 1790 in Historical Context, 7–10 (2002), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>. Thus, the
+1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
+History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
+<em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630–1865</em> (New
+York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
+twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
+<em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
+1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7–10 (2002), available at
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>. Thus, the
overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
those works that were 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783190" href="#id2783190" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
+years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737601" href="#id2737601" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
-"Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright," Studies on Copyright, vol. 1 (New
-York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963), 618. For a more recent and
-comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner,
-"Indefinitely Renewable Copyright," University of Chicago Law Review 70
-(2003): 471, 498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783201" href="#id2783201" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
+"Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright," <em class="citetitle">Studies on
+Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
+618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
+Richard A. Posner, "Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,"
+<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
+498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737630" href="#id2737630" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783304" href="#id2783304" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737725" href="#id2737725" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
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,
"Indefinitely Renewable Copyright," loc. cit.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783426" href="#id2783426" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737862" href="#id2737862" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, "Poets, Pirates, and the Creation of
-American Literature," 29 New York University Journal of International Law
-and Politics 255 (1997), and James Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records,
-1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O., 1987).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783509" href="#id2783509" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
+American Literature," 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).
-Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage," Legal Affairs, juli/august 2003,
-tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#26</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2783529"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783548" href="#id2783548" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737943" href="#id2737943" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
+
+Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage," <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="id2737970"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2737989" href="#id2737989" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
First Amendment) between mere "copies" and derivative works. See Jed
-Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality," Yale
-Law Journal 112 (2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783595" href="#id2783595" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
+Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality,"
+<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112 (2002): 1–60 (see
+especially pp. 53–59).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738040" href="#id2738040" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
regulates more than "copies"—a public performance of a copyrighted
song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se doesn't make
-a copy; 17 United States Code, section 106(4). And it certainly sometimes
-doesn't regulate a "copy"; 17 United States Code, section 112(a). But the
-presumption under the existing law (which regulates "copies;" 17 United
-States Code, section 102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783644" href="#id2783644" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
+a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 106(4). And it
+certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a "copy"; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States
+Code</em>, section 112(a). But the presumption under the existing law
+(which regulates "copies;" 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>,
+section 102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738101" href="#id2738101" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2783602" href="#id2783602" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738047" href="#id2738047" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
I don't mean "nature" in the sense that it couldn't be different, but rather
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2784092" href="#id2784092" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738574" href="#id2738574" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
-Se David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," Law and Contemporary
-Problems 44 (1981): 172–73.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2784112" href="#id2784112" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
+See David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," <em class="citetitle">Law and
+Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172–73.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738592" href="#id2738592" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
-Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 1–3.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2784101"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2784311" href="#id2784311" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
+Ibid. See also Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
+Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2738585"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2738821" href="#id2738821" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
obligation (and the limits for creating that 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2784585" href="#id2784585" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
-
-See Pamela Samuelson, "Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science," Science
-293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, "Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies
-Who Teach a Robot Dog New Tricks," American Prospect, January 2002; "Court
-Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA," Intellectual Property
-Litigation Reporter, 11 December 2001; Bill Holland, "Copyright Act Raising
-Free-Speech Concerns," Billboard, May 2001; Janelle Brown, "Is the RIAA
-Running Scared?" Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic Frontier Foundation,
-"Frequently Asked Questions about Felten and USENIX v. RIAA Legal Case,"
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2784603"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2784796" href="#id2784796" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417,
-455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the VCR. See James
-Lardner, Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739121" href="#id2739121" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
+
+See Pamela Samuelson, "Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,"
+<em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, "Play
+Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog New Tricks,"
+<em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002; "Court Dismisses
+Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA," <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property
+Litigation Reporter</em>, 11 December 2001; Bill Holland, "Copyright
+Act Raising Free-Speech Concerns," <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May
+2001; Janelle Brown, "Is the RIAA Running Scared?" Salon.com, April 2001;
+Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Frequently Asked Questions about
+<em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
+Legal Case," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2739159"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739370" href="#id2739370" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
+
+
+<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.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2784914" href="#id2784914" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739509" href="#id2739509" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, "Legal Fictions,
-Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law," Loyola of Los Angeles
-Entertainment Law Journal 17 (1997): 651.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785026" href="#id2785026" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
+Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law," <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los
+Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17 (1997): 651.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739624" href="#id2739624" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785038" href="#id2785038" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
+of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739636" href="#id2739636" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
Lynette Holloway, "Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to Slide,"
-New York Times, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785048" href="#id2785048" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739649" href="#id2739649" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
-Molly Ivins, "Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped," Charleston Gazette, 31
-May 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785109" href="#id2785109" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
+Molly Ivins, "Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped," <em class="citetitle">Charleston
+Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739716" href="#id2739716" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
-James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," Atlantic Monthly (september 2003): 89.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2785123"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785211" href="#id2785211" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
+James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em>
+(September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2739732"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739822" href="#id2739822" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
Leonard Hill, "The Axis of Access," remarks before Weidenbaum Center Forum,
"Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry," St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April
2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available at <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785240" href="#id2785240" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739852" href="#id2739852" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785282" href="#id2785282" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739896" href="#id2739896" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785333" href="#id2785333" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2739949" href="#id2739949" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
-"Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," Now with Bill Moyers, 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785382" href="#id2785382" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
+"Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740001" href="#id2740001" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
-Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National
-Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do Business (Cambridge: Harvard Business
-School Press, 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first
-suggested by Dean Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, "The Interaction of Design
-Hierarchies and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution," Research Policy
-14 (1985): 235–51. For a more recent study, see Richard Foster and
-Sarah Kaplan, Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last
-Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them (New
-York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785504" href="#id2785504" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
+Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
+Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
+Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
+1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
+Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, "The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and
+Market Concepts in Technological Evolution," <em class="citetitle">Research
+Policy</em> 14 (1985): 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740144" href="#id2740144" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003. These
restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for example,
Nat Ives, "On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection
-from TV Networks," New York Times, 13 March 2003, C4. Outside of
-election-related air time there is very little that the FCC or the courts
-are willing to do to even the playing field. For a general overview, see
-Rhonda Brown, "Ad Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on
-Television and Radio," Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988): 449–79,
-and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the courts, see
-Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC, 184 F. 3d 872
-(D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
-networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
-authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
-Matier and Andrew Ross, "Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects Ad,"
-SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. The ground was that
-the criticism was "too controversial." <a class="indexterm" name="id2785513"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2785522"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2785555"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2785679" href="#id2785679" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
+from TV Networks," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 13 March 2003,
+C4. Outside of election-related air time there is very little that the FCC
+or the courts are willing to do to even the playing field. For a general
+overview, see Rhonda Brown, "Ad Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial
+Advertising on Television and Radio," <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy
+Review</em> 6 (1988): 449–79, and for a more recent summary of
+the stance of the FCC and the courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News
+Directors Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d
+872 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as
+the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco
+transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel
+buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, "Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni
+Rejects Ad," SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. The ground was that
+the criticism was "too controversial." <a class="indexterm" name="id2740191"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2740199"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2740205"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740328" href="#id2740328" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans "fire kapitulasjoner" for
opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2785524"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2786024" href="#id2786024" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2740169"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740673" href="#id2740673" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, "The Disintegration of Property,"
-in Nomos XXII: Property, J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New
-York: New York University Press, 1980).
+in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland Pennock and John
+W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, 1980).
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 4. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Kapittel 4. Nøtter</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect2"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><p></p><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
-the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2786150" href="#ftn.id2786150" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
+the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2740805" href="#ftn.id2740805" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
extraordinarily beautiful, with "sweet water, pasture, an even climate,
slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent
fruit." But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an
</p><p>
Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are "blind."
-They don't have the word blind. They think he's just thick. Indeed, as they
-increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
-stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
-becomes increasingly frustrated. "`You don't understand,' he cried, in a
-voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
-blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'"
+They don't have the word <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just
+thick. Indeed, as they increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the
+sound of grass being stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to
+control him. He, in turn, becomes increasingly frustrated. "`You don't
+understand,' he cried, in a voice that was meant to be great and resolute,
+and which broke. `You are blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'"
</p><p>
possibility is an underused plot for murder mysteries. "But the DNA shows
with 100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at
the scene. . . ."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
86238"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2786246"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
40900"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2740909"></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 can two individuals have
a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with it,"
that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally) releases a
new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free copy to
-take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower. <a class="indexterm" name="id2786272"></a>
+take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower. <a class="indexterm" name="id2740941"></a>
</p><p>
file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
-been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2786341" href="#ftn.id2786341" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
+been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2741010" href="#ftn.id2741010" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
86405"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
41088"></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 copyrighted
recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
-either extreme would be worse than a reasonable alternative. But I believe
-the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse of the two extremes.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
+alternative. But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
+of the two extremes.
</p><p>
both in terms of the ease with 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.<sup>[<a name="id2786487" href="#ftn.id2786487" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
+everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2741174" href="#ftn.id2741174" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of "the
-major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2786510"></a>
+major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2741196"></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
time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
the property called "intellectual property" is at its greatest in our
history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
86558"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2786564"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
41244"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2741250"></a><p>
Yet "common sense" does not see it this way. Common sense is still on the
side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme claims of control
in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical rejection of "piracy"
engines that permitted songs 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.<sup>[<a name="id2786668" href="#ftn.id2786668" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
+$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2741355" href="#ftn.id2741355" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2786705" href="#ftn.id2786705" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
+damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2741391" href="#ftn.id2741391" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> 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? <a class="indexterm" name="id2786742"></a>
+negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2741427"></a>
</p><p>
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
art—not because the 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 "illegal art" tour the United
-States.<sup>[<a name="id2786325" href="#ftn.id2786325" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In what does their "illegality"
+States.<sup>[<a name="id2740994" href="#ftn.id2740994" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In what does their "illegality"
consist? In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that
is critical or reflective.
</p><p>
is better. And both 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="id27
86921"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
41610"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
that I described in chapter 10. The consequence of this massive threat of
learned.
</p><p>
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
-The Future of Ideas and which has progressed in a way that even I (pessimist
-extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
+<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><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
recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
-so on. <a class="indexterm" name="id2786980"></a>
+so on. <a class="indexterm" name="id2741672"></a>
</p><p>
This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem. Det får
også du. Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
87084"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787092"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787099"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
41776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2741784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2741791"></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).<sup>[<a name="id2787112" href="#ftn.id2787112" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
+cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2741804" href="#ftn.id2741804" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> 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 whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well. Your investment
buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit. So extreme has the
environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
-that touch content. In an article in Business 2.0, Rafe Needleman describes
-a discussion with BMW:
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id27
87146"></a><p>
+that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
+Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW:
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id27
41847"></a><p>
I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via 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. . . . <sup>[<a name="id2787161" href="#ftn.id2787161" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
+sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. . . . <sup>[<a name="id2741863" href="#ftn.id2741863" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Dette er verden til mafiaen—fylt med "penger eller livet"-trusler, som
ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som loven gir
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.<sup>[<a name="id2787292" href="#ftn.id2787292" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
+or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2741997" href="#ftn.id2741997" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
explore a mandatory "broadcast flag" 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.<sup>[<a name="id2787315" href="#ftn.id2787315" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
+copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2742019" href="#ftn.id2742019" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
</p><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.<sup>[<a name="id2787338" href="#ftn.id2787338" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
+impose.<sup>[<a name="id2742043" href="#ftn.id2742043" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
protection should not do more harm than good.
</p><p>
</p><p>
As I described in chapter 10, despite this feature of copyright as
regulation, and subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica
-Litman in her book Digital Copyright,<sup>[<a name="id2787369" href="#ftn.id2787369" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup>
-overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10 details, when
-new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a balance to assure
-that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or statutory, licenses
-have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the case of the VCR)
-has been another.
+Litman in her book <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2742077" href="#ftn.id2742077" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As
+chapter 10 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has
+struck a balance to assure that the new is protected from the
+old. Compulsory, or statutory, licenses have been one part of that
+strategy. Free use (as in the case of the VCR) has been another.
</p><p>
But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
</p><p>
-The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2787396" href="#ftn.id2787396" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
+The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2742106" href="#ftn.id2742106" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
-here.<sup>[<a name="id2787419" href="#ftn.id2787419" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
+here.<sup>[<a name="id2742141" href="#ftn.id2742141" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
radio.
</p><p>
broken only when it 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.<sup>[<a name="id2787538" href="#ftn.id2787538" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
+shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2742261" href="#ftn.id2742261" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
</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
-"vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"<sup>[<a name="id2787354" href="#ftn.id2787354" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
+"vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"<sup>[<a name="id2742058" href="#ftn.id2742058" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
</p><p>
Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
-it plays her hypothetical recording of "Happy Birthday" on the air, Internet
-radio does. Not only is the law not neutral toward Internet radio—the
-law actually burdens Internet radio more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
+it plays her hypothetical recording of "Happy Birthday" on the air,
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not neutral
+toward Internet radio—the law actually burdens Internet radio more
+than it burdens terrestrial radio.
</p><p>
This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor 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.<sup>[<a name="id2787589" href="#ftn.id2787589" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
+year.<sup>[<a name="id2742321" href="#ftn.id2742321" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
</p><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 every listening transaction:
+would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
+transaction</em></span>:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
name of the service;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
-pay a type of copyright fee that terrestrial radio does not.
+pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
+not.
</p><p>
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="id27
87804"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
42532"></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,
drive the small webcasters out of business. . . ."
</p><p>
And the RIAA experts said, "Well, we don't really model this as an industry
-with thousands of webcasters, 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." (Emphasis added.)
+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>." (Emphasis added.)
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
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 The New York Times, 43 million Americans
-downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2787884" href="#ftn.id2787884" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> 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 launches lawsuits against not only the Napsters and Kazaas of the
-world, but against students building search engines, and increasingly
-against ordinary users downloading content, the technologies for sharing
-will advance to further protect and hide illegal use. It is an arms race or
-a civil war, with the extremes of one side inviting a more extreme response
-by the other.
+of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
+million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2742619" href="#ftn.id2742619" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> 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 launches lawsuits against not only the
+Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
+engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
+technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
+use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
+inviting a more extreme response by the other.
</p><p>
The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
strategy animates 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.<sup>[<a name="id2787592" href="#ftn.id2787592" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
+file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2742311" href="#ftn.id2742311" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> 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 to settle the case.) Our law is an
consumption to just 30 percent 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.<sup>[<a name="id2787956" href="#ftn.id2787956" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
+were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2742694" href="#ftn.id2742694" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
-percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2787967" href="#ftn.id2787967" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
+percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2742707" href="#ftn.id2742707" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2787984" href="#ftn.id2787984" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our "free society," but an
+that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2742724" href="#ftn.id2742724" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our "free society," 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><p>
records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed, Apple Corporation went so far as
to suggest that "freedom" was a right: In a series of commercials, Apple
endorsed the "Rip, Mix, Burn" capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
88100"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
42844"></a><p>
This "use" 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 program called
attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the "collateral damage" that
"arises whenever you turn a very large percentage of the population into
criminals." This is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2788205"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2742956"></a>
</p><p>
"Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter," forklarer von Lohmann,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2788218"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2742970"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
one degree or another. . . . If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a 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.<sup>[<a name="id2788269" href="#ftn.id2788269" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
+these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2743020" href="#ftn.id2743020" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
</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.<sup>[<a name="id2788295" href="#ftn.id2788295" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
+to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2743061" href="#ftn.id2743061" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> 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 "fingerprint."
hasn't 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 "criminal." And under the rules that universities are beginning to
-deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2788168" href="#ftn.id2788168" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the
+deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2742912" href="#ftn.id2742912" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the
right to use the university's computer network. She can, in some cases, be
expelled.
</p><p>
university might not believe her. It might treat this "contraband" as
presumptive of guilt. And as any number of college students have already
learned, our presumptions about innocence disappear in the middle of wars of
-prohibition. This war is no different. Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2788368"></a>
+prohibition. This war is no different. Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2743156"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
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><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2786150" href="#id2786150" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740805" href="#id2740805" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
-H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells, The
-Country of the Blind and Other Stories, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York:
-Oxford University Press, 1996).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2786341" href="#id2786341" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
+H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741010" href="#id2741010" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, "Copyright
Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill
that would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
-"House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy," Los Angeles Times, 17 July 2003,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#34</a>. Civil penalties are currently set at $150,000 per copied
-song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
-that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than 600
-songs through a family computer, see RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services (In
-re. Verizon Internet Services), 240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a
-user could face liability ranging as high as $90 million. Such astronomical
-figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
-sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to $17,500 for four students
-accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
-pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
-proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young, "Downloading Could Lead to Fines,"
-redandblack.com, August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an example of the
-RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
-universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
-"RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students," Boston Globe, 8
-August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2786395"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2786487" href="#id2786487" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
+"House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy," <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
+Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #34</a>. Civil penalties are
+currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
+legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
+user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
+<em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
+re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F. Supp. 2d 24
+(D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
+million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
+in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
+$17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
+networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
+could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
+"Downloading Could Lead to Fines," redandblack.com, August 2003, available
+at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an
+example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the
+subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer identities,
+see James Collins, "RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,"
+<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="id2741078"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741174" href="#id2741174" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
-in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2786668" href="#id2786668" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
-
-See Lynne W. Jeter, Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom (Hoboken,
-N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204; for details of the settlement,
-see MCI press release, "MCI Wins U.S. District Court Approval for SEC
-Settlement" (7 July 2003), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2786693"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2786705" href="#id2786705" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
+in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741355" href="#id2741355" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
+
+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, "MCI Wins
+U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement" (7 July 2003), available at
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2741378"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741391" href="#id2741391" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
overview, see Tanya Albert, "Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,' Say
Tort Reformers," amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and "Senate Turns Back
Malpractice Caps," CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003, 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="id2786729"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2786325" href="#id2786325" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
-
-See Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free," Wired, 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787112" href="#id2787112" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Joseph Menn, "Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor," Los Angeles Times,
-23 April 2003. For a parallel argument about the effects on innovation in
-the distribution of music, see Janelle Brown, "The Music Revolution Will Not
-Be Digitized," Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>. See also Jon Healey,
-"Online Music Services Besieged," Los Angeles Times, 28 May 2001.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787161" href="#id2787161" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
-
-Rafe Needleman, "Driving in Cars with MP3s," Business 2.0, 16. juni 2003,
-tilgjengelig via <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#43</a>. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette
-eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2787175"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787292" href="#id2787292" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
+continued to urge tort reform in recent months. <a class="indexterm" name="id2741415"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2740994" href="#id2740994" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
+
+
+
+See Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free," <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741804" href="#id2741804" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
+
+
+See Joseph Menn, "Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor," <em class="citetitle">Los
+Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel argument about the
+effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see Janelle Brown, "The
+Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized," Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available
+at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>. See also
+Jon Healey, "Online Music Services Besieged," <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
+Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741863" href="#id2741863" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
+
+Rafe Needleman, "Driving in Cars with MP3s," <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="id2741879"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2741997" href="#id2741997" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
"Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World," 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787315" href="#id2787315" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742019" href="#id2742019" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787338" href="#id2787338" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742043" href="#id2742043" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes, February
2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787369" href="#id2787369" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742077" href="#id2742077" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
-Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2001).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787396" href="#id2787396" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
-
-The only circuit court exception is found in Recording Industry Association
-of America (RIAA) v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th
-Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that
-makers of a portable MP3 player were not liable for contributory copyright
-infringement for a device that is unable to record or redistribute music (a
-device whose only copying function is to render portable a music file
-already stored on a user's hard drive). At the district court level, the
-only exception is found in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster,
-Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal., 2003), where the court found the
-link between the distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to
-make the distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement
-liability.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787419" href="#id2787419" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
+Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
+Prometheus Books, 2001).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742106" href="#id2742106" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
+
+
+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 reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
+were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
+unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
+is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
+At the district court level, the only exception is found in
+<em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
+Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
+1029 (C.D. Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
+distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
+distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742141" href="#id2742141" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act,
which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital media
devices. See GartnerG2, "Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
-World," 27 June 2003, 33–34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2787427"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787538" href="#id2787538" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
+World," 27 June 2003, 33–34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2742149"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742261" href="#id2742261" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787354" href="#id2787354" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742058" href="#id2742058" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787589" href="#id2787589" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742321" href="#id2742321" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
Recordings, Docket No. 2000-9, CARP DTRA 1 and 2, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #45</a>. For an excellent
analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, "Copyright as Entry
-Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution," Antitrust Bulletin (Summer/Fall
-2002): 461: "This was not confusion, these are just old-fashioned entry
-barriers. Analog radio stations are protected from digital entrants,
-reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes, this is done in the name of
-getting royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the play of powerful
-interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral way." <a class="indexterm" name="id2787628"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2787637"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787884" href="#id2787884" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
+Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution," <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
+Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: "This was not confusion, these
+are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are protected
+from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes, this is
+done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the
+play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral
+way." <a class="indexterm" name="id2742350"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2742359"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742619" href="#id2742619" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, "The Music Downloading Deluge," 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787592" href="#id2787592" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742311" href="#id2742311" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
-Alex Pham, "The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case," Los
-Angeles Times, 10 September 2003, Business.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787956" href="#id2787956" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
+Alex Pham, "The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,"
+<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003, Business.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742694" href="#id2742694" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, "Alcohol Consumption During
-Prohibition," American Economic Review 81, no. 2 (1991): 242.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787967" href="#id2787967" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
+Prohibition," <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81, no. 2
+(1991): 242.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742707" href="#id2742707" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2787984" href="#id2787984" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742724" href="#id2742724" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, "Tax Compliance,"
-Journal of Economic Literature 36 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance
-literature).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788269" href="#id2788269" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36 (1998): 818 (survey
+of compliance literature).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743020" href="#id2743020" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
See Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
-Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants," Washington Post, 10
-September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs, "Worried Parents Pull Plug on File
-`Stealing'; With the Music Industry Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents
-are Yanking Software from Home PCs to Avoid Being Sued," Orlando Sentinel
-Tribune, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, "Recording Industry Sues
-Parents," USA Today, 15 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, "She Says She's
-No Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either," New York Times, 25 September 2003,
-C1; Margo Varadi, "Is Brianna a Criminal?" Toronto Star, 18 September 2003,
-P7.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788295" href="#id2788295" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
+Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants," <em class="citetitle">Washington
+Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs, "Worried Parents Pull
+Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry Cracking Down on File
+Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs to Avoid Being Sued,"
+<em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1;
+Jefferson Graham, "Recording Industry Sues Parents," <em class="citetitle">USA
+Today</em>, 15 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, "She Says She's No
+Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
+25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, "Is Brianna a Criminal?"
+<em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743061" href="#id2743061" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
See "Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses Some
Methods Used," CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788168" href="#id2788168" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
-
-
-See Jeff Adler, "Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent," Boston
-Globe, 18 May 2003, City Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, "Four Students Sued over
-Music Sites; Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges," Washington
-Post, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth Armstrong, "Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at
-Their Own Risk," Christian Science Monitor, 2 September 2003, 20; Robert
-Becker and Angela Rozas, "Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola; Two Students
-Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible," Chicago Tribune, 16 July 2003, 1C;
-Beth Cox, "RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities," Internet News, 30
-January 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2742912" href="#id2742912" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
+
+
+See Jeff Adler, "Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,"
+<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City Weekly, 1; Frank
+Ahrens, "Four Students Sued over Music Sites; Industry Group Targets File
+Sharing at Colleges," <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003,
+E1; Elizabeth Armstrong, "Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,"
+<em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
+Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, "Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola; Two
+Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible," <em class="citetitle">Chicago
+Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox, "RIAA Trains Antipiracy
+Guns on Universities," <em class="citetitle">Internet News</em>, 30 January
+2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#48</a>; Benny Evangelista, "Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation
-This Fall to Include Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing," San
-Francisco Chronicle, 11 August 2003, E11; "Raid, Letters Are Weapons at
-Universities," USA Today, 26 September 2000, 3D.
+This Fall to Include Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,"
+<em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; "Raid,
+Letters Are Weapons at Universities," <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
+September 2000, 3D.
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 5. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Kapittel 5. Maktfordeling</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="sect1"><a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></div><p>
Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
tur mot den brennende bilen. Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
</p><p>
-A war about copyright rages all around—and we're all focusing on the
-wrong thing. No doubt, current technologies threaten existing businesses.
-No doubt they may threaten artists. But technologies change. The industry
-and technologists have plenty of ways to use technology to protect
-themselves against the current threats of the Internet. This is a fire that
-if let alone would burn itself out.
+En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt— og vi fokuserer alle på feil
+ting. Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
+virksomheter. Uten tvil kan de true artister. Men teknologier endrer seg.
+Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
+dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet. Dette er en brann som overlatt til
+seg selv vil brenne ut.
</p><p>
mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
</p><p>
-Somehow we have to find a way to turn attention to this more important and
-fundamental issue. Somehow we have to find a way to avoid pouring gasoline
-onto this fire.
-</p><p>
-We have not found that way yet. Instead, we seem trapped in a simpler,
-binary view. However much many people push to frame this debate more
-broadly, it is the simple, binary view that remains. We rubberneck to look
-at the fire when we should be keeping our eyes on the road.
-</p><p>
-This challenge has been my life these last few years. It has also been my
-failure. In the two chapters that follow, I describe one small brace of
-efforts, so far failed, to find a way to refocus this debate. We must
-understand these failures if we're to understand what success will require.
+På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
+viktige og fundametale problemet. Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
+bensin på denne brannen.
+</p><p>
+Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå. Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
+enklere og sort-hvit tenkning. Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
+gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
+som består. Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
+burde holde øynene på veien.
+</p><p>
+Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene. Det har også vært
+min falitt. I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
+langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten. Vi
+må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
+å lykkes.
</p><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><p>
In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
accessible—technically accessible—today.
</p><p>
Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
-as Disney's. Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter had passed into the public domain in
-1907. It was free for anyone to take without the permission of the Hawthorne
-estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press and Penguin Classics, take
-works from the public domain and produce printed editions, which they sell
-in bookstores across the country. Others, such as Disney, take these stories
-and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes successfully (Cinderella),
-sometimes not (The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Treasure Planet). These are all
-commercial publications of public domain works.
+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
+permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
+and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
+editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
+Disney, take these stories and turn them into 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><p>
The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
publishing industry," which before the 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.<sup>[<a name="id2788544" href="#ftn.id2788544" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
+culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2743418" href="#ftn.id2743418" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
-of poems New Hampshire was slated to pass into the public domain. Eldred
-wanted to post that collection in his free public library. But Congress got
-in the way. As I described in chapter 10, in 1998, for the eleventh time in
-forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing copyrights—this
-time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add any works more recent
-than 1923 to his collection until 2019. Indeed, no copyrighted work 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.
+of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
+public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
+library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter 10, in
+1998, for the eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of
+existing copyrights—this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be
+free to add any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.
+Indeed, no copyrighted work 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><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 "copyrights should be forever."<sup>[<a name="id2788630" href="#ftn.id2788630" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
+Mary Bono, says, believed that "copyrights should be forever."<sup>[<a name="id2743451" href="#ftn.id2743451" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power to extend its
term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
forbids—perpetual terms "on the installment plan," as Professor Peter
-Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2788656"></a>
+Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2743492"></a>
</p><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
Extension Act, this "theory" about incentives was proved 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.<sup>[<a name="id2788841" href="#ftn.id2788841" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent over $1.5 million
+of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2743686" href="#ftn.id2743686" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2788854" href="#ftn.id2788854" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is
+campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2743700" href="#ftn.id2743700" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is
estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in
-the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2788869" href="#ftn.id2788869" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
+the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2743716" href="#ftn.id2743716" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
once, they would extend it again and again and again.
</p><p>
-It was also my judgment that this 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 the power of Congress when it has
-viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power granted to it by the
-Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most famous example of this
-trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to strike down a law that
-banned the possession of guns near schools.
+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 the power of
+Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
+granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
+famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
+strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
</p><p>
Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
limit.
</p><p>
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
-United States v. Lopez. The government had argued that possessing guns near
-schools affected interstate commerce. Guns near schools increase crime,
-crime lowers property values, and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief
-Justice asked the government whether there was any activity that would not
-affect interstate commerce under the reasoning the government advanced. The
-government said there was not; if Congress says an activity affects
-interstate commerce, then that activity affects interstate commerce. The
-Supreme Court, the government said, was not in the position to second-guess
-Congress.
+<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
+government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
+commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
+and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
+whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
+under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
+not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
+activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
+said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
</p><p>
"We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments," the
-Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2788948" href="#ftn.id2788948" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything
+Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2743806" href="#ftn.id2743806" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> 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
-Lopez was reaffirmed five years later in United States
-v. Morrison.<sup>[<a name="id2788959" href="#ftn.id2788959" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
-
+<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five years later in
+<em class="citetitle">United States</em>
+v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2743833" href="#ftn.id2743833" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
-Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2788974" href="#ftn.id2788974" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2743853" href="#ftn.id2743853" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
extend an existing term, then there would be no "stopping point" to
grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not allowed to extend the
term of existing copyrights.
</p><p>
-If, that is, the principle announced in Lopez stood for a principle. Many
-believed the decision in Lopez stood for politics—a conservative
-Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its power over
-Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I rejected
-that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after the
-decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the "fidelity" in such an
+<span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
+<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle. Many believed the
+decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics—a
+conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
+power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
+rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
+the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the "fidelity" in such an
interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme Court decides
cases based upon 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><p>
Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
-Eldred was not about. By insisting on the Constitution's limits to
-copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing piracy. Indeed, in an obvious
-sense, he was fighting a kind of piracy—piracy of the public
-domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work and when Walt Disney created Mickey
-Mouse, the maximum copyright term was just fifty-six years. Because of
-interim changes, Frost and Disney had already enjoyed a seventy-five-year
-monopoly for their work. They had gotten the benefit of the bargain that the
-Constitution envisions: In exchange for a monopoly protected for fifty-six
-years, they created new work. But now these entities were using their
-power—expressed through the power of lobbyists' money—to 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.
+<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
+Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
+piracy. Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
+piracy—piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
+and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
+just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
+already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
+the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
+a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
+these entities were using their power—expressed through the power of
+lobbyists' money—to 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><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 "legal piracy."<sup>[<a name="id2789018" href="#ftn.id2789018" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our
+domain is nothing more than "legal piracy."<sup>[<a name="id2743933" href="#ftn.id2743933" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> 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 charter.
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.<sup>[<a name="id2789093" href="#ftn.id2789093" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
+generally.<sup>[<a name="id2743992" href="#ftn.id2743992" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
"But there isn't a list of who owns property generally," the apologists for
the system respond. "Why should there be a list of copyright owners?"
</p><p>
-Well, actually, if you think about it, there are plenty of lists of who owns
-what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles to cars. And where
-there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty good at suggesting who
-the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in your backyard is probably
-yours.) So formally or informally, we have a pretty good way to know who
-owns what tangible property.
+Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
+of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
+to cars. And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
+good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
+your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
+pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
</p><p>
So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be 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="id27
89206"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
44125"></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 made between
-1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, The Lucky Dog, is currently out of
-copyright. But for the CTEA, films made after 1923 would have begun entering
-the public domain. Because Agee controls the exclusive rights for these
-popular films, he makes a great deal of money. According to one estimate,
-"Roach has sold about 60,000 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's
-silent films."<sup>[<a name="id2789234" href="#ftn.id2789234" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2789245"></a>
+1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
+Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
+after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
+controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
+of money. According to one estimate, "Roach has sold about 60,000
+videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent films."<sup>[<a name="id2744147" href="#ftn.id2744147" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2744164"></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 Court that
of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very 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 mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2789282" href="#ftn.id2789282" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
+cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2744201" href="#ftn.id2744201" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
locate the copyright owner.
</p><p>
-Or more accurately, owners. As we've seen, there isn't only a single
-copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't a single
-person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as many as can
-hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large number. Thus the
-costs of clearing the rights to these films is exceptionally high.
+Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
+only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
+a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
+many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
+number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
+exceptionally high.
</p><p>
"But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
copyright owner when she shows up?" Sure, if you want to commit a
</p><p>
Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
-copyright-related use that would be inhibited by an exclusive right. When a
-book went out of print, you could not buy it from a publisher. But you
-could still buy it from a used book store, and when a used book store sells
-it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the copyright owner
-anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its commercial life ended
-was a use that was independent of copyright law.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
+exclusive right. When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
+publisher. But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
+used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
+copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
+commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
</p><p>
The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
film—the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs—were so high,
</p><p>
Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
-the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful copyright purpose, for
-the purpose of copyright is to enable the commercial market that spreads
-culture. No, we are talking about culture after it has lived its commercial
-life. In this context, copyright is serving no purpose at all related to the
-spread of knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
+the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
+<span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
+enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
+culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
+is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
+knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
expression. Copyright is a brake.
</p><p>
You may well ask, "But if digital technologies lower the costs for Brewster
gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
films, books, and music produced between 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.<sup>[<a name="id2789497" href="#ftn.id2789497" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
+value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2744431" href="#ftn.id2744431" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
burde ha vært vunnet. Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
at vi ikke vant.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
89616"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
44550"></a><p>
Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
på grunn av sin støtte til oss. De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
saken.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
89639"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789645"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789651"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
44573"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744579"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744585"></a><p>
Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
-views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in law and not
-politics, then, we tried to gather 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.
+views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
+<span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather 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><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.
documented, was the power of money. Schlafly enumerated Disney's
contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
-Schlafly argued. <a class="indexterm" name="id2789729"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2789735"></a>
+Schlafly argued. <a class="indexterm" name="id2744692"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2744698"></a>
</p><p>
In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
Amendment scholars. There was an 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.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2789796"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2744727"></a>
</p><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
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="id27
89821"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789827"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789833"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789846"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
44752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744758"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744765"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744771"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2744777"></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 the list of
individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2789856"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2744788"></a>
</p><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
Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
-the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. <a class="indexterm" name="id2789902"></a>
+the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. <a class="indexterm" name="id2744844"></a>
</p><p>
The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
well. Significantly, however, none of these "friends" included historians or
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 "glorify
-drugs or to create pornography."<sup>[<a name="id2789932" href="#ftn.id2789932" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That
+drugs or to create pornography."<sup>[<a name="id2744875" href="#ftn.id2744875" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That
was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its "protection"
-of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license Porgy
-and Bess to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
-cast.<sup>[<a name="id2789948" href="#ftn.id2789948" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
-part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
-help them effect that control. <a class="indexterm" name="id2789959"></a>
+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.<sup>[<a name="id2744900" href="#ftn.id2744900" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their
+view of how this part of American culture should be controlled, and they
+wanted this law to help them effect that control. <a class="indexterm" name="id2744913"></a>
</p><p>
This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice
Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five had been the most consistent in
limiting Congress's power. They were the five who had supported the
-Lopez/Morrison 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="id2790006"></a><p>
+<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="id2744963"></a><p>
The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
Congress's power. These four—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with 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="id27
90040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
44998"></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
</p><p>
This then was the core of our strategy—a strategy for which I am
-responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the Lopez case,
-under the government's argument here, Congress would always have unlimited
-power to extend existing terms. If anything was plain about Congress's power
-under the Progress Clause, it was that this power was supposed to be
-"limited." Our aim would be to get the Court to reconcile Eldred with Lopez:
-If Congress's power to regulate commerce was limited, then so, too, must
-Congress's power to regulate copyright be limited.
+responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
+<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
+Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
+anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
+that this power was supposed to be "limited." Our aim would be to get the
+Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
+<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
+limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
+limited.
</p><p>
The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress 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="id27
90142"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45110"></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 Court. And in his review
-of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2790155"></a>
+of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2745123"></a>
</p><p>
"I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be willing
to upset this practice that the government says has been a 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."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
90164"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45132"></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
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="id27
90291"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45259"></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 here was the
was a swing and a miss.
</p><p>
The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
-crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the Lopez ruling, and we hoped
-that he would see this case as its second cousin.
+crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
+ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
</p><p>
It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
had been wrong in my reasoning.
</p><p>
-My reasoning. Here was a case that pitted all the money in the world against
-reasoning. And here was the last naïve law professor, scouring the pages,
-looking for reasoning.
+My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
+in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
+naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
</p><p>
I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
-principle in this case from the principle in Lopez. 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.
+principle in this case from the principle in
+<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><p>
Congress's power not limited here.
</p><p>
Her opinion was perfectly reasonable—for her, and for Justice
-Souter. Neither believes in Lopez. It would be too much to expect them to
-write an opinion that recognized, much less explained, the doctrine they had
-worked so hard to defeat.
+Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
+much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
+explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
</p><p>
But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
-simply by not addressing the argument. There was no inconsistency because
-they would not talk about the two together. There was therefore no
-principle that followed from the Lopez case: In that context, Congress's
-power would be limited, but in this context it would not.
+simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
+inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together. There was
+therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
+case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
+context it would not.
</p><p>
Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
would respect? By what right did they—the silent five—get to
important, and I had failed to 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="id27
90461"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45450"></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 extension of
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="id27
90480"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45469"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was unconstitutional.
</p><p>
These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
-neither believed in the Lopez case, neither was willing to push it as a
-reason to reject this extension. The case was decided without anyone having
-addressed the argument that we had carried from Judge Sentelle. It was
-Hamlet without the Prince.
+neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
+willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
+decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
+from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
+Prince.
</p><p>
Defeat brings depression. They say 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><p>
It was first anger with the five "Conservatives." It would have been one
-thing for them to have explained why the principle of Lopez didn't apply in
-this case. That wouldn't have been a very convincing argument, I don't
-believe, having read it made by others, and having tried to make it
-myself. But it at least would have been an act of integrity. These justices
-in particular have repeatedly said that the proper mode of interpreting the
-Constitution is "originalism"—to first understand the framers' text,
-interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
-Constitution. That method had produced Lopez and many other "originalist"
-rulings. Where was their "originalism" now?
+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 argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
+others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
+an act of integrity. These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
+the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is "originalism"—to
+first understand the framers' text, interpreted in their context, in light
+of the structure of the Constitution. That method had produced
+<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many other "originalist" rulings. Where was
+their "originalism" now?
</p><p>
Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with 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="id27
90568"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45568"></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 case would be won
in that effort to persuade; but I 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="id27
90610"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45610"></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? <a class="indexterm" name="id2790622"></a>
+Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2745622"></a>
</p><p>
My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
was a mistake. "The Court is not ready," Peter Jaszi said; this issue should
-not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2790653"></a>
+not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2745653"></a>
</p><p>
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
-law. The New York Times wrote in its editorial,
+law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
images—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page. The "powerful and
wealthy" line is a bit unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like
-that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2790539"></a>
+that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2745537"></a>
</p><p>
The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
-The New York Times. That "grand experiment" we call the "public domain" is
-over? When I can make light of it, I think, "Honey, I shrunk the
-Constitution." But I can rarely make light of it. We had 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.
+<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That "grand experiment" we call
+the "public domain" is over? When I can make light of it, I think, "Honey, I
+shrunk the Constitution." But I can rarely make light of it. We had 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><div class="sect1" title="Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
-The day Eldred was decided, fate would have it that I was to travel to
-Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in Eldred was
-denied—meaning the case was really finally over—fate would have
-it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.) This was a
-particularly 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="id27
90735"></a><p>
+The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
+was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
+<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied—meaning the case was really
+finally over—fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
+technologists at Disney World.) This was a particularly 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="id27
45750"></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 important. And
of politics.
</p><p>
-The New York Times published the piece. In it, I proposed a simple fix:
-Fifty years after a work has been published, the copyright owner would be
-required to register the work and pay a small fee. If he paid the fee, he
-got the benefit of the full term of copyright. If he did not, the work
-passed into the public domain.
+<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
+proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
+copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
+fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
+copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
</p><p>
We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name. Eric
Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
copyright where it is doing nothing except 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="id27
90800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45806"></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, people can see the
is often impossibly hard to locate 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="id27
90833"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2790840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45850"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2745857"></a><p>
As I described in chapter 10, formalities in copyright law were removed in
1976, when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal
-requirement before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2790851" href="#ftn.id2790851" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The Europeans are said to view copyright as a "natural right."
+requirement before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2745868" href="#ftn.id2745868" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The Europeans are said to view copyright as a "natural right."
Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread "Walt Disney
creativity" is destroyed when there is no simple way to know what's
protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
90895"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
45917"></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 years, as well as the
abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
-Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an i or
-cross a t resulted in the loss of widows' only income.
+Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
+<em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
+loss of widows' only income.
</p><p>
These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
-formalities. Complex, expensive, lawyer transactions take their place.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2790961"></a>
+formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
+take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id2745990"></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 didn't "get."
burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
-in a way that has never been seen before because there are no formalities.
+in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
+formalities</em></span>.
</p><p>
The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
-the real problem of governments standing at the core of any system of
-formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That solution
-essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was Amazon that
-ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click registration. The
-Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration fifty years after
-a work was published. Based 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="id27
91087"></a><p>
+the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
+any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
+solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
+Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
+registration. The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
+fifty years after a work was published. Based 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="id27
46112"></a><p>
Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, "vi er nære". Det oppstod en
generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje her.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2791119"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2746144"></a>
</p><p>
But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
</p><p>
With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
-their content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an effort to assure
-that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is another step to
-assure that the public domain will never compete, that there will be no use
-of content that is not commercially controlled, and that there will be no
-commercial use of content that doesn't require their permission first.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
+effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
+another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
+will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
+there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
+<span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
</p><p>
The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
the protection of "property" but the rejection of a tradition. Their aim is
-not simply to protect what is theirs. Their aim is to assure that all there
-is is what is theirs.
+not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to assure that
+all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
</p><p>
It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
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="id27
91273"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2791279"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
46318"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2746324"></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 respected, so that
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><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788544" href="#id2788544" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743418" href="#id2743418" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788630" href="#id2788630" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
+protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743451" href="#id2743451" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
The full text is: "Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to
also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress," 144
Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788841" href="#id2788841" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743686" href="#id2743686" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
Associated Press, "Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey Mouse
-Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years," Chicago Tribune,
-17. oktober 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788854" href="#id2788854" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
+Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,"
+<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743700" href="#id2743700" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
Se Nick Brown, "Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information Age,"
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#49</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788869" href="#id2788869" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
-
-Alan K. Ota, "Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars," Congressional
-Quarterly This Week, 8. august 1990, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788948" href="#id2788948" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
-
-United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788959" href="#id2788959" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
-
-United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2788974" href="#id2788974" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743716" href="#id2743716" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Alan K. Ota, "Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,"
+<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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743806" href="#id2743806" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
+U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743833" href="#id2743833" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
+
+
+<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
+U.S. 598 (2000).
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743853" href="#id2743853" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+
+
If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
copyrights—the limitation to "limited times" notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2789018" href="#id2789018" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
-
-Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2789093" href="#id2789093" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743933" href="#id2743933" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
+
+
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2743992" href="#id2743992" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
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, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2789234" href="#id2789234" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2744147" href="#id2744147" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+
+
+See David G. Savage, "High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,"
+<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David Streitfeld,
+"Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today
+on Striking Down Copyright Extension," <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
+Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2744201" href="#id2744201" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
-See David G. Savage, "High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law," Los
-Angeles Times, 6 October 2002; David Streitfeld, "Classic Movies, Songs,
-Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down
-Copyright Extension," Orlando Sentinel Tribune, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2789282" href="#id2789282" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
-
Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
-Petitoners, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618), 12. See
-also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the Internet
-Archive, Eldred v. Ashcroft, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2789497" href="#id2789497" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
+Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
+v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
+12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2744431" href="#id2744431" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
Jason Schultz, "The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory," 20 December
2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#54</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2789932" href="#id2789932" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2744875" href="#id2744875" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
-Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S.
-(2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2789948" href="#id2789948" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2744900" href="#id2744900" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
Dinitia Smith, "Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse Joins
-the Fray," New York Times, 28 March 1998, B7.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2790851" href="#id2790851" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
+the Fray," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March 1998, B7.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2745868" href="#id2745868" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
books published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
-works. Paul Goldstein, International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
-Materials (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153–54. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 6. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 6. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
+Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
+153–54. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 6. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 6. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten
millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
000 pr. år. Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen afrikansk stat råd
til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere: $15 000 er tredve
ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er
-disse medisinene fullstendig utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2791360" href="#ftn.id2791360" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
+disse medisinene fullstendig utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2746404" href="#ftn.id2746404" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
fra India. Dette kalles "parallellimport" og er generelt tillatt i
internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den europeiske
-union.<sup>[<a name="id2791437" href="#ftn.id2791437" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
+union.<sup>[<a name="id2746482" href="#ftn.id2746482" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
"Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika . . . til å ikke tillate tvungen
-lisensiering eller parallellimport"<sup>[<a name="id2791471" href="#ftn.id2791471" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup>
+lisensiering eller parallellimport"<sup>[<a name="id2746518" href="#ftn.id2746518" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup>
Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant (USTR), ba myndighetene
Sør-Afrika om å endre loven—og for å legge press bak den
forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land som burde
patenter. Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
-Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2791496" href="#ftn.id2791496" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
+Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2746547" href="#ftn.id2746547" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng. Det er ingen tvil om at
patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
</p><p>
I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
-eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2791588" href="#ftn.id2791588" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
+eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2746641" href="#ftn.id2746641" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
grunn av at "intellektuell eiendom" ville bli krenket at disse medisinene
ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om viktigheten av
"intellektuell eiendom" som fikk disse myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere
fri kultur.
</p><p>
I august 2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual
-Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id2791702" href="#ftn.id2791702" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interresenter hadde WIPO
+Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id2746766" href="#ftn.id2746766" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interresenter hadde WIPO
bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere "åpne og sammarbeidende prosjekter
for å skape goder for felleskapet". Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å
produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av
Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet. Og det inkluderte "åpen kildekode og fri
-programvare". <a class="indexterm" name="id2791868"></a>
+programvare". <a class="indexterm" name="id2746942"></a>
</p><p>
Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
</p><p>
Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
-ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2791894" href="#ftn.id2791894" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2746969" href="#ftn.id2746969" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak
vitenskapet, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
biten av "fri programvare"—og IBM er helt klart en kommernsiell
aktør. Dermed er det å støtte "fri programvare" ikke å motsette seg
kommersielle aktører. Det er i stedet å støtte en måte å drive
-programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2791761" href="#ftn.id2791761" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup>
+programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2746824" href="#ftn.id2746824" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte "åpen kildekode og fri
de som tar i bruk programvaren. Den er dermed like avhengig av
opphavsrettsloven som Microsoft.
</p><p>
-Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
-programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
-bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet. Og
-ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd. I
-følge Jonathan Krim i Washington Post, lyktes Microsofts lobbyister i å få
-USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2792103" href="#ftn.id2792103" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble møtet avlyst.
+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.<sup>[<a name="id2747169" href="#ftn.id2747169" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> And without U.S. backing, the
+meeting was canceled.
</p><p>
Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
immaterielle rettigheter? Ville det vært bedre om internettets protokoller
hadde vært patentert?
</p><p>
-For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
-immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
-tradisjon, av individer og selskaper. De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
-med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er de som eier rettigetene. Hvis de
-ønsker å "frafalle" eller "frasi" seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter
-boka i vår tradisjon. Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $20 milliarder til
-gode formål, så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet. Det
-er heller tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at
-individer har retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med sin eiendom.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2792164"></a>
+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 what to do with
+those rights because, again, they are <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> rights. If
+they want to "waive" or "disclaim" their rights, that is, within our
+tradition, totally appropriate. When Bill Gates gives away more than $20
+billion to do good in the world, that is not inconsistent with the
+objectives of the property system. That is, on the contrary, just what a
+property system is supposed to be about: giving individuals the right to
+decide what to do with <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> property. <a class="indexterm" name="id2747296"></a>
</p><p>
Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte "som har som sitt formål
eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet. Føydalismen var
avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon. Det sloss mot enhver frihet
som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
92265"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792271"></a><p>
-Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
-vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2792284" href="#ftn.id2792284" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
-Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn. Så mye er sikkert. Vårt eneste
-valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være fritt eller
-føydalt. Trenden er mot det føydale.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
47336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2747342"></a><p>
+As Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite relate, this is precisely the choice we
+are now making about intellectual property.<sup>[<a name="id2747353" href="#ftn.id2747353" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup> 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><p>
Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette. En heftig debatt brøt ut i
kommentarfeltet. Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
mesteparten av vår historie—fri kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
92401"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
47475"></a><p>
Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. Det finnes
øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
mindre strenge eierskapregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
endringen i FCC-reglene. Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
-krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. <a class="indexterm" name="id2792422"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792428"></a>
+krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. <a class="indexterm" name="id2747496"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2747502"></a>
</p><p>
Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fientlige høringene som ledet
</p><p>
Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
for våre tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
92521"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
47595"></a><p>
Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
-at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2792534" href="#ftn.id2792534" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
-musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2792570" href="#ftn.id2792570" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
+at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2747608" href="#ftn.id2747608" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
+musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2747654" href="#ftn.id2747654" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
har "stjålet" fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
-over.<sup>[<a name="id2792588" href="#ftn.id2792588" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
+over.<sup>[<a name="id2747672" href="#ftn.id2747672" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym—rapporterer
"en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene. De har fantastisk [gammelt]
innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn av at de
politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven.
Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å
dele innhold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
92605"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792629"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792635"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792641"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
47688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2747712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2747718"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2747725"></a><p>
I mens på andre siden av atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
bygge opp et "kreativt arkiv" som britiske borgere kan laste ned BBC-innhold
-fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2792658" href="#ftn.id2792658" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup>
+fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2747742" href="#ftn.id2747742" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup>
Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i seg selv en folkehelt i
brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative Commons for å gi ut
-innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske landet.<sup>[<a name="id2792679" href="#ftn.id2792679" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten mer
+innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske landet.<sup>[<a name="id2747763" href="#ftn.id2747763" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten mer
mer blandet. En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet. Sakte begynner noen å
forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki. Vi kan få med oss fri
kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister taper og uten at
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2791360" href="#id2791360" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746404" href="#id2746404" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, "Final Report: Integrating
Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" (London, 2002),
#55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
utviklingsland dem de trenger—og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2791437" href="#id2791437" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746482" href="#id2746482" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
-Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the
-Knowledge Economy? (New York: The New Press, 2003), 37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2791444"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2791452"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2791471" href="#id2791471" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
-
-International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), Patent Protection and
-Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a Report Prepared
-for the World Intellectual Property Organization (Washington, D.C., 2000),
-14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#56</a>. For a firsthand account of the struggle over South Africa, see
-Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
-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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2791496" href="#id2791496" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
+See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
+<em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
+Press, 2003), 37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2746490"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2746499"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746518" href="#id2746518" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
+
+
+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), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
+account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
+Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human 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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746547" href="#id2746547" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
-International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), Patent Protection and
-Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en rapport
-forberedt for the World Intellectual Property Organization (Washington,
-D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2791588" href="#id2791588" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746641" href="#id2746641" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
See Sabin Russell, "New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's Needs at
-Odds with Firms' Profit Motive," San Francisco Chronicle, 24 May 1999, A1,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a>
-("compulsory licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of
-intellectual property protection"); Robert Weissman, "AIDS and Developing
-Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines," Foreign Policy in
-Focus 4:23 (August 1999), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
+Odds with Firms' Profit Motive," <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
+Chronicle</em>, 24 May 1999, A1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a> ("compulsory licenses
+and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual property
+protection"); Robert Weissman, "AIDS and Developing Countries: Democratizing
+Access to Essential Medicines," <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in
+Focus
</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, "TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and the
HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual Property
-Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis," Widener Law Symposium Journal (Spring
-2001): 175.
+Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis," <em class="citetitle">Widener Law Symposium
+Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2791702" href="#id2791702" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746766" href="#id2746766" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
-Jonathan Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," Washington Post, august
-2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#59</a>; William New, "Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting
-Spurs Stir," National Journal's Technology Daily, 19. august 2003,
-tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#60</a>; William New, "U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at
-WIPO," National Journal's Technology Daily, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig
-fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2791894" href="#id2791894" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
+Jonathan Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," <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, "Global
+Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir," <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 #60</a>; William New,
+"U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO," <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746969" href="#id2746969" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2791761" href="#id2791761" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2746824" href="#id2746824" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
-Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
-sofistikert. De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
-programvare som er "åpen kildekode" eller programvare som er allemannseie.
-Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot "fri programvare" lisensiert med en
-"copyleft"-lisens, som betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal
-adoptere same vilkår for ethvert avledet verk. Se Bradford L. Smith, "The
-Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace to Decide," Government Policy
-Toward Open Source Software (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center
-for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
-Research, 2002), 69, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. Se også Craig Mundie,
-Microsoft senior vice president, The Commercial Software Model, diskusjon
-ved New York University Stern School of Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig
-
fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2792103" href="#id2792103" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
+Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
+sophisticated. As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with "open
+source" software or software in the public domain. Microsoft's principal
+opposition is to "free software" licensed under a "copyleft" license,
+meaning a license that requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any
+derivative work. See Bradford L. Smith, "The Future of Software: Enabling
+the Marketplace to Decide," <em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source
+Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
+Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
+Research, 2002), 69, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. See also Craig Mundie,
+Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
+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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747169" href="#id2747169" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2792284" href="#id2792284" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747353" href="#id2747353" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
-Se Drahos og Braithwaite, Information Feudalism, 210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2792287"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2792534" href="#id2792534" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
+See Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2746541"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747608" href="#id2747608" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
-John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, september 2003,
-tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," CNN/Money, 8
-september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis
-Furman sammen med Robert Gearty, "Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among
-261 Cited as Sharers," New York Daily News, 9. september 2003, 3; Frank
-Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif.,
-12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants," Washington Post, 10. september
-2003, E1; Katie Dean, "Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA," Wired News,
-10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2792570" href="#id2792570" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
+John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, September 2003,
+available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>;
+Paul R. La Monica, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," CNN/Money, 8 September
+2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#66</a>; Soni Sangha and Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, "Sued for a
+Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers," <em class="citetitle">New York
+Daily News</em>, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits
+Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in
+N.Y. Among Defendants," <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September
+2003, E1; Katie Dean, "Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA," <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747654" href="#id2747654" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
Jon Wiederhorn, "Eminem Gets Sued . . . by a Little Old Lady," mtv.com,
17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2792588" href="#id2792588" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747672" href="#id2747672" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
Kenji Hall, Associated Press, "Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for Dylan
Songs," Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2792658" href="#id2792658" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747742" href="#id2747742" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
"BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public," pressemelding fra BBC,
24. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2792679" href="#id2792679" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747763" href="#id2747763" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
"Creative Commons and Brazil," Creative Commons Weblog, 6. august 2003,
by law (there is no law protecting "privacy" 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="id27
92885"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
47956"></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 at. You know this
It is this reality that explains the push of many to define "privacy" 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.<sup>[<a name="id2792923" href="#ftn.id2792923" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And whether you're in favor of
+did.<sup>[<a name="id2747993" href="#ftn.id2747993" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> 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
binaries— was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
about controlling their software.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
92951"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
48029"></a><p>
Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
archive and made permanently 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2793128"></a>
+inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2748213"></a>
</p><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
</p><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 reasonable copyright on top of the extremes that
-now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to build upon other
-people's work, by making it simple for creators to express the freedom for
-others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied to
-human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
+aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
+of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
+build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
+the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
+to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
possible.
</p><p>
-Simple—which means without a middleman, or without a lawyer. By
-developing a free set of licenses that people can attach to their content,
-Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content that can easily, and
-reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to machine-readable
-versions of the license that enable computers automatically to identify
-content that can easily be shared. These three expressions together—a
-legal license, a human-readable description, and machine-readable
-tags—constitute a Creative Commons license. A Creative Commons license
-constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who accesses the license, and more
-importantly, an expression of the ideal that the person associated with the
-license believes in something different than the "All" or "No"
-extremes. Content is marked with the CC mark, which does not mean that
-copyright is waived, but that certain freedoms are given.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>—which means without a middleman, or
+without a lawyer. By developing a free set of licenses that people can
+attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
+that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
+machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
+to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
+together—a legal license, a human-readable description, and
+machine-readable tags—constitute a Creative Commons license. A
+Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
+accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
+the person associated with the license believes in something different than
+the "All" or "No" extremes. Content is marked with the CC mark, which does
+not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain freedoms are given.
</p><p>
These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
movement of consumers and producers of content ("content conducers," 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2793246"></a>
+creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id2748338"></a>
</p><p>
The aim is not to fight the "All Rights Reserved" sorts. The aim is to
complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture are
</p><p>
Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
-fiction author. His first novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, was
-released on-line and for free, under a Creative Commons license, on the same
-day that it went on sale in bookstores.
+fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
+Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
+Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
</p><p>
Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1) those who will buy
it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2) will download Cory's book, like
it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods. If there are more
(2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
-will probably increase sales of Cory's book.
+will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
</p><p>
Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
-book about the free software movement titled Free for All, made an
-electronic version of his book free on-line under a Creative Commons license
-after the book went out of print. He then monitored 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.
+book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
+All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
+Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
+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><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
or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
others. This is consistent with their own art—they, too, sample from
-others. Because the legal costs of sampling are so high (Walter Leaphart,
-manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born sampling the music of
-others, has stated that he does not "allow" Public Enemy to sample anymore,
-because the legal costs are so high<sup>[<a name="id2793191" href="#ftn.id2793191" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>),
-these artists release into the creative environment content that others can
-build upon, so that their form of creativity might grow.
+others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
+(Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
+sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not "allow" Public
+Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so high<sup>[<a name="id2748422" href="#ftn.id2748422" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release into the creative
+environment content that others can build upon, so that their form of
+creativity might grow.
</p><p>
Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
license just because they want to express to others the importance of
to defeat the rights of authors, but to 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="id27
93395"></a></div></div><div class="sect1" title="Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id27
48509"></a></div></div><div class="sect1" title="Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
We will 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 these ideas and implement these reforms. But
others. There are no records, there is no system to trace— there is no
simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
-any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the lack of formalities forces
-many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
+any work that builds upon our 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<sup>[<a name="id2793479" href="#ftn.id2793479" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
+The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2748608" href="#ftn.id2748608" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—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.
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id2793616" href="#ftn.id2793616" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
+permission.<sup>[<a name="id2748731" href="#ftn.id2748731" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
work would therefore be "use unless someone complains." If someone does
complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work in any new
work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing uses. This
marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
-and it would base that choice solely upon the consideration of which method
-could best be integrated into the registration and renewal system. We would
-not count on the government to innovate; but we would count on the
-government to keep the product of innovation in line with its other
-important functions.
+and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
+consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
+and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
+would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
+its other important functions.
</p><p>
Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
corporate authors, and life of the author plus seventy years for natural
authors.
</p><p>
-In The Future of Ideas, I proposed a seventy-five-year term, granted in
-five-year increments with a requirement of renewal every five years. That
-seemed radical enough at the time. But after we lost Eldred v. Ashcroft,
-the proposals became even more radical. The Economist endorsed a proposal
-for a fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2793722" href="#ftn.id2793722" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup>
-Others have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
+In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
+seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
+of renewal every 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.<sup>[<a name="id2748853" href="#ftn.id2748853" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> 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 copyright's
term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
-Keep it short: The term should be as long as necessary to give incentives to
-create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong protections for
-authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from publishers), rights to
-the same work (not derivative works) might be extended further. The key is
-not to tie the work up with legal regulations when it no longer benefits an
-author. </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
+to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
+protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
+publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
+extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
+when it no longer benefits an author.
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-Gjør det enkelt: Skillelinjen mellom verker uten opphavsrettslig vern og
-innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart. Advokater liker uklarheten som
-"rimelig bruk" og forskjellen mellom "idéer" og "uttrykk" har. Denne type
-lovverk gir dem en masse arbeid. Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en
-enklere idé: vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at
-det er lite behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden
-holdes kort. En klar og aktiv "advokat-fri sone" gjør komplesiteten av
-"rimelig bruk" og "idé/uttrykk" mindre nødvendig å håndtere.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it simple:</em></span> The line between the public domain and
+protected content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the fuzziness of "fair
+use," and the distinction between "ideas" and "expression." That kind of law
+gives them lots of work. But our framers had a simpler idea in mind:
+protected versus unprotected. The value of short terms is that there is
+little need to build exceptions into copyright when the term itself is kept
+short. A clear and active "lawyer-free zone" makes the complexities of "fair
+use" and "idea/expression" less necessary to navigate.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-Keep it alive: Copyright should have to be renewed. Especially if the
-maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be required to signal
-periodically that he wants the protection 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.<sup>[<a name="id2793794" href="#ftn.id2793794" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup> 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2793813"></a>
+<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 should be
+required to signal periodically that he wants the protection 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.<sup>[<a name="id2748942" href="#ftn.id2748942" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
+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.
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2748962"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
-Keep it prospective: Whatever the term of copyright should be, the clearest
-lesson that economists teach is that a term once given should not be
-extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the law to offer authors
-only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's possible. If it was a
-mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer authors to create in
-1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct that mistake today
-by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we will not increase the
-number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can increase the reward
-that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase the copyright
-burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But increasing
-their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923. What's not done is
-not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now. </p></li></ol></div><p>
-Disse endringene vil sammen gi en gjennomsnittlig opphavsrettslig vernetid
-som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden. Frem til 1976 var
-gjennomsnittelig vernetid kun 32.2 år. Vårt mål bør være det samme.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
+should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
+given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
+law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
+possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
+authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
+that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
+will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
+increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
+the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
+increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923. What's
+not done
is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now. </p></li></ol></div><p>
+These changes together should produce an <span class="emphasis"><em>average</em></span>
+copyright term that is much shorter than the current term. Until 1976, the
+average term was just 32.2 years. We should be aiming for the same.
</p><p>
Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene "radikale". (Tross alt, så
kaller jeg dem "ekstremister".) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var
</p><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.<sup>[<a name="id2793903" href="#ftn.id2793903" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
+dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2749061" href="#ftn.id2749061" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2793924" href="#ftn.id2793924" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
+abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2749085" href="#ftn.id2749085" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
</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
copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant. Consider
each limitation in turn.
</p><p>
-Term: If Congress wants to grant a derivative right, then that right should
-be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect John Grisham's right
-to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at least I'm willing to
-assume it does); but it does not make sense for that right 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="id2793951"></a>
-</p><p>
-Scope: Likewise should the scope of derivative rights be narrowed. Again,
-there are some cases in which derivative rights are important. Those should
-be specified. But the law should draw clear lines around regulated and
-unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all "reuse" of creative
-material was within the control of businesses, perhaps it made sense to
-require lawyers to negotiate the lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers
-to negotiate the lines. Think about all the creative possibilities that
-digital technologies enable; now imagine pouring molasses into the
-machines. That's what this general requirement of permission does to the
-creative process. Smothers it.
+<span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
+then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
+John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
+least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
+right 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="id2749115"></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 rights are
+important. Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
+around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
+"reuse" of creative material was within the control of businesses, perhaps
+it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the lines. It no longer makes
+sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think about all the creative
+possibilities that digital 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><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
</p><p>
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.<sup>[<a name="id2793991" href="#ftn.id2793991" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
+reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2749158" href="#ftn.id2749158" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
expanded protections follow expanded uses.
</p><p>
Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
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, then, is the critical
-point: When it is extremely easy to connect to services that give access to
-content, it will be easier to connect to services that give you access to
-content than it will be to download and store content on the many devices
-you will have for playing content. It will be easier, in other words, to
-subscribe than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
+point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
+that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
+connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
+download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
+playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
+than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
money for the content they give access to. Already 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 "free"
-content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.<sup>[<a name="id2794168" href="#ftn.id2794168" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
+content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.<sup>[<a name="id2749402" href="#ftn.id2749402" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
</p><p>
The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
-Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2794371" href="#ftn.id2794371" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
+Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2749564" href="#ftn.id2749564" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
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 easy it is to
be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
</p><p>
Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
-questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book, Promises to
-Keep. The modification that I would make is relatively simple: Fisher
-imagines his proposal replacing the existing copyright system. I imagine it
-complementing the existing system. The aim of the proposal would be to
-facilitate compensation to the extent that harm could be shown. This
-compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating a transition between
-regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of years. If it
-continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content, supported
-through a taxation 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.
+questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
+<em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
+is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
+copyright system. I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
+of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
+could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
+a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
+years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
+supported through a taxation 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><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
abstrakt betydning. Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
markedet. Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
-gir et marked av størrelse x, eller (b) å ha en teknologi som er 50 prosent
-sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger større enn x? Mindre sikker
-kan gi mer uautorisert deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye
-større marked for autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres
-kompensasjon uten å ødelegge internettet. Når det er på plass, kan det
-hende det er riktig å finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
+gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
+teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
+større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>? Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
+deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
+autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
+ødelegge internettet. Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
+finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
</p><p>
Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens vernetid var
galskap. Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende foreleser og
utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
-åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2794737" href="#ftn.id2794737" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
+åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2749939" href="#ftn.id2749939" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter. Men
som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
-lav.<sup>[<a name="id2794768" href="#ftn.id2794768" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
+lav.<sup>[<a name="id2749972" href="#ftn.id2749972" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
</p><p>
Vi burde spørre: "Hvorfor?". Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av kultur er
nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt. Før du kan vise
meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2792923" href="#id2792923" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2747993" href="#id2747993" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, "Fair Information Practices and the
-Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get)," Stanford Technology Law
-Review 1 (2001): par. 6–18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
-which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen, The Naked
-Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age (New York: Random
-House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2793191" href="#id2793191" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
+Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get)," <em class="citetitle">Stanford
+Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001): par. 6–18, available at
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2748422" href="#id2748422" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
-Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real Culture Wars
-(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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2793479" href="#id2793479" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
+<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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2748608" href="#id2748608" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2793616" href="#id2793616" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
+by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2748731" href="#id2748731" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2793722" href="#id2793722" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2748853" href="#id2748853" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
-"A Radical Rethink," Economist, 366:8308 (25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig
-fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2793794" href="#id2793794" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
+
+"A Radical Rethink," <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 class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2748942" href="#id2748942" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2793903" href="#id2793903" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749061" href="#id2749061" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
-Benjamin Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia
-University Press, 1967), 32.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2793924" href="#id2793924" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
+Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
+York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749085" href="#id2749085" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2793991" href="#id2793991" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749158" href="#id2749158" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
-Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox
-(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="id2792931"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2794168" href="#id2794168" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
+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="id2748005"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749402" href="#id2749402" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
For eksempel, se, "Music Media Watch," The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3 April
2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#76</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2794371" href="#id2794371" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
- William Fisher, Digital Music: Problems and Possibilities (last revised: 10
-October 2000), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#77</a>; William Fisher, Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the
-Future of Entertainment (forthcoming) (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
-2004), ch. 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#78</a>. Professor Netanel has proposed a related idea that would exempt
-noncommercial sharing from the reach of copyright and would establish
-compensation to artists to balance any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel,
-"Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing," available
-at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other
-proposals, see Lawrence Lessig, "Who's Holding Back Broadband?" Washington
-Post, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip S. Corwin on behalf of Sharman Networks, A
-Letter to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of the Senate Foreign
-Relations Committee, 26 February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, A
-Quick Case for Intellectual Property Use Fee (IPUF), 3 March 2002, available
-at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson
-Graham, "Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly," USA Today, 13 May
-2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#82</a>; Steven M. Cherry, "Getting Copyright Right," IEEE Spectrum
-Online, 1 July 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>; Declan McCullagh,
-"Verizon's Copyright Campaign," CNET News.com, 27 August 2002, available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>. Fisher's
-proposal is very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for DAT. Unlike
-Fisher's, Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly proportionally,
-though more popular artists would get more than the less 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="id2794455"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2794463"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2794737" href="#id2794737" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749564" href="#id2749564" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
+
+William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
+Possibilities</em> (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #77</a>; William Fisher,
+<em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of
+Entertainment</em> (forthcoming) (Stanford: Stanford University
+Press, 2004), ch. 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel has
+proposed a related idea that would exempt noncommercial sharing from the
+reach of copyright and would establish compensation to artists to balance
+any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel, "Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy to
+Allow Free P2P File Sharing," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other proposals,
+see Lawrence Lessig, "Who's Holding Back Broadband?" <em class="citetitle">Washington
+Post</em>, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip S. Corwin on behalf of Sharman
+Networks, A Letter to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of the Senate
+Foreign Relations Committee, 26 February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #80</a>; Serguei Osokine,
+<em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual Property Use Fee
+(IPUF)</em>, 3 March 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
+"Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly," <em class="citetitle">USA
+Today</em>, 13 May 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
+"Getting Copyright Right," IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002, available at
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>; Declan
+McCullagh, "Verizon's Copyright Campaign," CNET News.com, 27 August 2002,
+available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>.
+Fisher's proposal is very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for
+DAT. Unlike Fisher's, Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly
+proportionally, though more popular artists would get more than the less
+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="id2749664"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2749672"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749939" href="#id2749939" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
Lawrence Lessig, "Copyright's First Amendment" (Melville B. Nimmer Memorial
-Lecture), UCLA law Review 48 (2001): 1057, 1069–70.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2794768" href="#id2794768" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
-
-Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
-ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
-å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon—to ganger. I starten
-predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade. Han
-endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
-på nytt. Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy: The
-True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace (New York: Amacom, 2002),
-(gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis) med Stan J.
-Liebowitz, "Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?" artikkelutkast, juni
-2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#86</a>. Den nøye analysen til Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin
-estimering av effekten av fildelingsteknologi. Etter mitt syn
-underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden til det juridiske system. Se, for
-eksempel, Rethinking, 174–76. <a class="indexterm" name="id2794745"></a>
+Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48 (2001): 1057,
+1069–70.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2749972" href="#id2749972" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
+
+A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is to be
+commended for his careful review of data about infringement, leading him to
+question his own publicly stated position—twice. He initially
+predicted that downloading would substantially harm the industry. He then
+revised his view in light of the data, and he has since revised his view
+again. Compare Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
+Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
+York: Amacom, 2002), (reviewing his original view but expressing skepticism)
+with Stan J. Liebowitz, "Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?" working
+paper, June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>. Liebowitz's careful
+analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the 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="id2749949"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 8. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 8. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven. Og som alle
som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / commitdiff
