reflecting upon what one has written. One learns to write with images
by making them and then reflecting upon what one has created.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Crichton, Michael</primary></indexterm>
<para>
-This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just
-film, as Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of
- Southern
+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
<!-- PAGE BREAK 50 -->
USC School of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was
-about "the placement of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and
- texture."<footnote>
+about "the placement of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and
+texture."<footnote>
<indexterm><primary>Barish, Stephanie</primary></indexterm>
<para>
<!-- f11 -->
<para>
When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it
faced the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that
-the English had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws
- protecting
-creative property, and some believed that these laws simply
-supplemented common law rights that already protected creative
- authorship.<footnote><para>
+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.<footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>Crosskey, William W.</primary></indexterm>
+<para>
<!-- f8 -->
-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).
-</para></footnote>
-This meant that there was no guaranteed public domain in
-the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
- common
-law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work
- published
-in the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England,
-this lingering uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely
-upon a public domain to reprint and distribute works.
+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).
+</para></footnote>
+This meant that there was no guaranteed public domain in the United
+States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the common law, then
+there was no simple way to know whether a work published in the United
+States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
+uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public
+domain to reprint and distribute works.
</para>
<para>
That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
-copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
-protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.
-Just as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the
- copyrights
-for all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any
-state copyrights expired as well.
+copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law,
+federal protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law
+protections. Just as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant
+that the copyrights for all English works expired, a federal statute
+meant that any state copyrights expired as well.
</para>
<para>
In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a
</para>
<indexterm><primary>Causby, Thomas Lee</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>Causby, Tinie</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Creative Commonts</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Gil, Gilberto</primary></indexterm>
<para>
Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced
that it will build a "Creative Archive," from which British citizens can
24 August 2003, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #70</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
-<indexterm><primary>Gil, Gilberto</primary></indexterm>
And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil, himself a folk hero
of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to release
content and free licenses in that Latin American
country.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f15. --> "Creative Commons and Brazil," Creative Commons Weblog, 6 August
-2003, available at
+<!-- f15. -->
+"Creative Commons and Brazil," Creative Commons Weblog, 6 August 2003,
+available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #71</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 278 -->
access to a paper journal.
</para>
<para>
-As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are
- demanding
-that libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This
-means that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries
-begin to disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing
-technology and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
+As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding
+that libraries not give the general public access to the
+journals. This means that the freedoms provided by print journals in
+public libraries begin to disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with
+software, a changing technology and market shrink a freedom taken for
+granted before.
</para>
<para>
This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to
scientific research available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors
<!-- PAGE BREAK 287 -->
of scientific work submit that work to the Public Library of Science.
-That work is then subject to 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.
+That work is then subject to 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.
</para>
<para>
This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for
-granted before, but now threatened by changing technology and
- markets.
-There's no doubt that this alternative competes with the
- traditional
+granted before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.
+There's no doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional
publishers and their efforts to make money from the exclusive
-distribution of content. But competition in our tradition is
- presumptively
-a good—especially when it helps spread knowledge and science.
+distribution of content. But competition in our tradition is
+presumptively a good—especially when it helps spread knowledge
+and science.
</para>
</sect2>
<sect2 id="oneidea">
<title>Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</title>
+<indexterm id="idxcc" class='startofrange'>
+ <primary>Creative Commonts</primary>
+</indexterm>
<para>
-The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the
- increasing
-control effected through law and technology.
+The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the
+increasing control effected through law and technology.
</para>
<para>
Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit
</para>
<para>
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 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is
-given. She can choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.
-She can choose a license that permits any use so long as the same
- freedoms
-are given to other uses ("share and share alike"). Or any use so
-long as no derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing
-nations. Or any sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or
-lastly, any educational use.
-</para>
-<para>
-These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default
-of copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional
+precise contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The
+creator can choose a license that permits any use, so long as
+attribution is given. She can choose a license that permits only
+noncommercial use. She can choose a license that permits any use so
+long as the same freedoms are given to other uses ("share and share
+alike"). Or any use so long as no derivative use is made. Or any use
+at all within developing nations. Or any sampling use, so long as full
+copies are not made. Or lastly, any educational use.
+</para>
+<para>
+These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
+copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional
fair use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way
that subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
-lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content,
- governed
-by a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build
-upon. Voluntary choice of individuals and creators will make this
- content
-available. And that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a
- public
-domain.
-</para>
-<para>
-This is just one project among many within the Creative
- Commons.
-And of course, Creative Commons is not the only organization
-pursuing such freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative
-Commons from many is that we are not interested only in talking
-about a public domain or in getting legislators to help build a public
-domain. Our aim is to build a movement of consumers and producers
+lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content,
+governed by a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build
+upon. Voluntary choice of individuals and creators will make this
+content available. And that content will in turn enable us to rebuild
+a public domain.
+</para>
+<para>
+This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And
+of course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
+freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from
+many is that we are not interested only in talking about a public
+domain or in getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our
+aim is to build a movement of consumers and producers
<!-- PAGE BREAK 289 -->
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.
</para>
<para>
-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 produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws
-written centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could
-have imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a
- background
-of technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense
-against the background of digital technologies. New rules—with
- different
-freedoms, expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can
-use them—are needed. Creative Commons gives people a way
- effectively
+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 produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
+centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
+imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
+technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against
+the background of digital technologies. New rules—with different
+freedoms, expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use
+them—are needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively
to begin to build those rules.
</para>
<para>
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.
+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.
</para>
<para>
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 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2)
-those who may never hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for
-free on the Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book
- instead
-of buying 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.
+reasoned like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)
+those who will buy Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet,
+and (2) those who may never hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made
+available for free on the Internet. Some part of (1) will download
+Cory's book instead of buying 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.
</para>
<para>
-Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that
- conclusion.
-The book's first printing was exhausted months before the
-publisher had expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was
-a total success.
+Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that
+conclusion. The book's first printing was exhausted months before the
+publisher had expected. This first novel of a science fiction author
+was a total success.
</para>
<para>
-The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree
- content
+The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content
was confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner,
<!-- PAGE BREAK 290 -->
who wrote a book about the free software movement titled Free for All,
well.
</para>
<para>
-These are examples of using the Commons to better spread
- proprietary
-content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the
-Commons. There are others who use Creative Commons licenses for
-other reasons. Many who use the "sampling license" do so because
- anything
-else would be hypocritical. The sampling license says that others
-are free, for commercial 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<footnote><para>
-<!-- f2. --> 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
+These are examples of using the Commons to better spread
+proprietary content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of
+the Commons. There are others who use Creative Commons licenses for
+other reasons. Many who use the "sampling license" do so because
+anything else would be hypocritical. The sampling license says that
+others are free, for commercial 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<footnote><para>
+<!-- f2. -->
+
+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
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #72</ulink>.
</para></footnote>),
these artists release into the creative environment content
that others can build upon, so that their form of creativity might grow.
</para>
<para>
-Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative
-Commons license just because they want to express to others the
- importance
-of balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system
-as it is, you are effectively saying you believe in the "All Rights Reserved"
-model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however
- appropriate
-that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate
-description of how most creators view the rights associated with their
-content. The Creative Commons license expresses this notion of "Some
-Rights Reserved," and gives many the chance to say it to others.
+Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
+license just because they want to express to others the importance of
+balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is,
+you are effectively saying you believe in the "All Rights Reserved"
+model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however
+appropriate that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an
+appropriate description of how most creators view the rights
+associated with their content. The Creative Commons license expresses
+this notion of "Some Rights Reserved," and gives many the chance to
+say it to others.
</para>
<para>
In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over
steps are possible.
</para>
<para>
-Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by
- individuals
-and creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the
-creative field. The project does not compete with copyright; it
- complements
-it. Its aim is not 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.
+Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by
+individuals and creators to change the mix of rights that now govern
+the creative field. The project does not compete with copyright; it
+complements it. Its aim is not 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.
</para>
+<indexterm startref="idxcc" class='endofrange'/>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 292 -->
</sect2>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / commitdiff