Sarnoff was quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device
that removed static from "radio." But when Armstrong demonstrated
his invention, Sarnoff was not pleased.
+<indexterm><primary>Sarnoff, David</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
launched a campaign to smother FM radio. While FM may have been a
superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician. As one author
described,
+<indexterm><primary>Sarnoff, David</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a
network and had therefore "willfully" violated copyright laws. They
<!-- PAGE BREAK 64 -->
- demanded
-that he pay them the damages for his wrong. For cases of
+demanded that he pay them the damages for his wrong. For cases of
"willful infringement," the Copyright Act specifies something lawyers
call "statutory damages." These damages permit a copyright owner to
claim $150,000 per infringement. As the RIAA alleged more than one
-hundred specific copyright infringements, they therefore demanded
-that Jesse pay them at least $15,000,000.
+hundred specific copyright infringements, they therefore demanded that
+Jesse pay them at least $15,000,000.
</para>
<para>
Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one
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.
+<indexterm><primary>San Francisco Opera</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands
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.
+<indexterm><primary>San Francisco Opera</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the
</para>
<para>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
-use. Whatever the "real" law is, realism about the effect of law in both
-contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation will
- systematically
-stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
- industries
-and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
-generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant
- competition.
-Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of
- competition.
-The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect
-of too much control in the market is to produce an
- overregulatedregulated
-market.
+use. Whatever the "real" law is, realism about the effect of law in
+both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
+will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect
+some industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and
+creativity generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant
+competition. Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this
+kind of competition. The effect is to produce an overregulated
+culture, just as the effect of too much control in the market is to
+produce an overregulatedregulated market.
</para>
<para>
The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is
-the first important way in which the changes I have described will
- burden
-innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture—a
- culture
-in which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again,
-I am not antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I
-am certainly not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its
-limits. And leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the
-high costs that our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of
-the law is an embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our
-profession should therefore do everything it can to make the law more
-efficient, it should at least do everything it can to limit the reach of the
+the first important way in which the changes I have described will
+burden innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's
+culture—a culture in which the ability to create requires a call
+to your lawyer. Again, I am not antilawyer, at least when they're kept
+in their proper place. I am certainly not antilaw. But our profession
+has lost the sense of its limits. And leaders in our profession have
+lost an appreciation of the high costs that our profession imposes
+upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an embarrassment to our
+tradition. And while I believe our profession should therefore do
+everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at least
+do everything it can to limit the reach of the
<!-- PAGE BREAK 202 -->
law where the law is not doing any good. The transaction costs buried
-within a permission culture are enough to bury a wide range of
- creativity.
-Someone needs to do a lot of justifying to justify that result.
-The uncertainty of the law is one burden on innovation. There is
-a second burden that operates more directly. This is the effort by many
-in the content industry to use the law to directly regulate the
- technology
-of the Internet so that it better protects their content.
+within a permission culture are enough to bury a wide range of
+creativity. Someone needs to do a lot of justifying to justify that
+result. The uncertainty of the law is one burden on innovation. There
+is a second burden that operates more directly. This is the effort by
+many in the content industry to use the law to directly regulate the
+technology of the Internet so that it better protects their content.
</para>
<para>
-The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables
-the efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the
- Internet's
-design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this
- feature
-is a "bug." The efficient spread of content means that content
-distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
-One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet
-less efficient. If the Internet enables "piracy," then, this response says,
-we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
+The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
+efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the
+Internet's design. But from the perspective of the content industry,
+this feature is a "bug." The efficient spread of content means that
+content distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution
+of content. One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make
+the Internet less efficient. If the Internet enables "piracy," then,
+this response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
</para>
<para>
The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of
<para>
The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some
sense. The justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The
-recording artist thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio
-station was making it more likely that her records would be purchased.
-Thus, the recording artist got something, even if only indirectly.
- Probably
-this reasoning had less to do with the result than with the power
-of radio stations: Their lobbyists were quite good at stopping any
- efforts
-to get Congress to require compensation to the recording artists.
+recording artist thus benefited because by playing her music, the
+radio station was making it more likely that her records would be
+purchased. Thus, the recording artist got something, even if only
+indirectly. Probably this reasoning had less to do with the result
+than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists were quite good
+at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require compensation to the
+recording artists.
</para>
<para>
-Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a
- technology
-to stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast
-travels across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.
-Thus, I can "tune in" to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
-in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a
- regular
-radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
+Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a
+technology to stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The
+broadcast travels across the Internet, not across the ether of radio
+spectrum. Thus, I can "tune in" to an Internet radio station in
+Berlin while sitting in San Francisco, even though there's no way for
+me to tune in to a regular radio station much beyond the San Francisco
+metropolitan area.
</para>
<para>
This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there
-are potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could
-tune in to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture
-for broadcast radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of
- broadcasters
-and clear broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore
-be more competitive than regular radio; it could provide a wider range
-of selections. And because the potential audience for Internet radio is
-the whole world, niche stations could easily develop and market their
-content to a relatively large number of users worldwide. According to
-some estimates, more than eighty million users worldwide have tuned
-in to this new form of radio.
+are potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user
+could tune in to using her computer, whereas under the existing
+architecture for broadcast radio, there is an obvious limit to the
+number of broadcasters and clear broadcast frequencies. Internet radio
+could therefore be more competitive than regular radio; it could
+provide a wider range of selections. And because the potential
+audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche stations could
+easily develop and market their content to a relatively large number
+of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
+million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
</para>
<para>
that this law was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
</para>
<para>
-The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
-Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very
- beginning.
-Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In
-November 1998, she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the
- Republican
-Congress for allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, "Do you
-sometimes wonder why bills that create a financial windfall to narrow
-special interests slide easily through the intricate legislative process,
-while bills that benefit the general public seem to get bogged down?"
-The answer, as the editorial 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.
-</para>
-<para>
-In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief
- supporting
-our position. Their brief made the argument that became the
+The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's
+organization, Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the
+very beginning. Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by
+Congress. In November 1998, she wrote a stinging editorial attacking
+the Republican Congress for allowing the law to pass. As she wrote,
+"Do you sometimes wonder why bills that create a financial windfall to
+narrow special interests slide easily through the intricate
+legislative process, while bills that benefit the general public seem
+to get bogged down?" The answer, as the editorial 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.
+<indexterm><primary>Eagle Forum</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Schlafly Phyllis, David</primary></indexterm>
+</para>
+<para>
+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 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of
-existing copyrights, there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.
-That strong conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative
-judge, Judge Sentelle.
+existing copyrights, there is no limit to Congress's power to set
+terms. That strong conservative argument persuaded a strong
+conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
</para>
<para>
In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as
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.
+<indexterm><primary>Eagle Forum</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal
rather than "proprietary software," for their own internal uses.
</para>
<para>
-I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make
-clear that the distinction is not between commercial and
- noncommercial
-software. There are many important companies that depend
- fundamentally
-upon open source and free software, IBM being the most
+I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to
+make clear that the distinction is not between commercial and
+noncommercial software. There are many important companies that depend
+fundamentally upon open source and free software, IBM being the most
prominent. IBM is increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux
-operating system, the most famous bit of "free software"—and IBM is
-emphatically a commercial entity. Thus, to support "open source and
-free software" is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead, to
-support a mode of software development that is different from
- Microsoft's.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f8. --> 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," 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,
-available at
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #62</ulink>. See also Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior vice
- president,
-The Commercial Software Model, discussion at New York University
-Stern School of Business (3 May 2001), available at
+operating system, the most famous bit of "free software"—and IBM
+is emphatically a commercial entity. Thus, to support "open source and
+free software" is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead,
+to support a mode of software development that is different from
+Microsoft's.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f8. -->
+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," 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, available at
+<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #62</ulink>. See also
+Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior vice president, The Commercial Software
+Model, discussion at New York University Stern School of Business (3
+May 2001), available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #63</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
</para>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / commitdiff