-<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 V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren L
AWRENCE LESSIG (http://www.lessig.org), professor of law and a John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is chairman of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). The author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), Lessig is a member of the boards of the Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, twice listed in BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, and named one of Scientific American's 50 visionaries. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="no" 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 medieaktører 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">
Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Legal Notice"><a name="id2544574"></a><p>
+<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 V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren L
awrense 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 medieaktører 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="id2861720"></a><p>
<span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
</p><p>
Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensiert med en
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>
</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>
-LAWRENCE LESSIG (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor of law
-and a John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School,
-is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is chairman
-of the Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>). The
-author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And Other Laws
-of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), Lessig is a member of the boards of the
-Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public
-Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free Software Foundation's Award for the
-Advancement of Free Software, twice listed in BusinessWeek's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">e.biz
-25,</span>”</span> and named one of Scientific American's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">50
-visionaries.</span>”</span> A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge
-University, and Yale Law School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of
-the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
+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 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
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>”</span> og omtalt som en av Scientific American's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">50
+visjonærer</span>”</span>. 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.
</p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="salespoints"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
Du kan kjøpe et eksemplar av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene
nedenfor:
og kontrollere kreativiteten
</p><p>
Lawrence Lessig
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
512604"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
817756"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
Til Eric Eldred — hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
hvem saken fortsetter.
-</p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">“<span class="quote">P
IRACY</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">CHAPTER FOUR: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Pirates</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">CHAPTER FIVE: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piracy</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">“<span class="quote">PROPERTY</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Property</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2596549">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Colophon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2513497"></a>Colophon</h2><p>
+</p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">“<span class="quote">P
iratvirksomhet</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Pirater</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>”</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2901872">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2818462"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street
New York, New York
</p><p>
2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with
permission.
</p><p>
-Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figure 10.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.”</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
+Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.”</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
</p><p>
-Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figure 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figure 10.19, “Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.”</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
+Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, “Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.”</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
</p><p>
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
</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>
+<span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
+første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
-datarelaterte tekster, skrev dette på slutten av hans gjennomgang av min
-første bok, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>:
+datarelaterte tekster, dette:
</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
ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Pogue was skeptical of the core argument of the book—that software, or
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">code,</span>”</span> functioned as a kind of law—and his review
-suggested the happy thought that if life in cyberspace got bad, we could
-always <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">drizzle, drazzle, druzzle, drome</span>”</span>-like simply flip a
-switch and be back home. Turn off the modem, unplug the computer, and any
-troubles that exist in <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> space wouldn't
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">affect</span>”</span> us anymore.
-</p><p>
-
-Pogue might have been right in 1999—I'm skeptical, but maybe. But
-even if he was right then, the point is not right now: <em class="citetitle">Free
-Culture</em> is about the troubles the Internet causes even after the
-modem is turned off. It is an argument about how the battles that now rage
-regarding life on-line have fundamentally affected <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">people who aren't
-online.</span>”</span> There is no switch that will insulate us from the Internet's
-effect.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
512765"></a><p>
+Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken — at
+programvaren, eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">koden</span>”</span>, fungerte som en slags lov —
+og foreslo i 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 <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">påvirke</span>”</span> 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. <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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">folk som
+er ikke pålogget.</span>”</span> Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
+internettets effekt.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
817336"></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>
-That tradition is the way our culture gets made. As I explain in the pages
-that follow, we come from a tradition of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free
-culture</span>”</span>—not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> as in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free beer</span>”</span>
-(to borrow a phrase from the founder of the free software
-movement<sup>[<a name="id2512807" href="#ftn.id2512807" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), but <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> as
-in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free speech,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free markets,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free
-trade,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free enterprise,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free will,</span>”</span> and
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free elections.</span>”</span> A free culture supports and protects creators
-and innovators. It does this directly by granting intellectual property
-rights. But it does so indirectly by limiting the reach of those rights, to
-guarantee that follow-on creators and innovators remain <span class="emphasis"><em>as free as
-possible</em></span> from the control of the past. A free culture is not a
-culture without property, just as a free market is not a market in which
-everything is free. The opposite of a free culture is a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permission
-culture</span>”</span>—a culture in which creators get to create only with
-the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past.
-</p><p>
-If we understood this change, I believe we would resist it. Not
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we</span>”</span> on the Left or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">you</span>”</span> on the Right, but we who
-have no stake in the particular industries of culture that defined the
-twentieth century. Whether you are on the Left or the Right, if you are in
-this sense disinterested, then the story I tell here will trouble you. For
-the changes I describe affect values that both sides of our political
-culture deem fundamental.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2512877"></a><p>
-We saw a glimpse of this bipartisan outrage in the early summer of 2003. As
-the FCC considered changes in media ownership rules that would relax limits
-on media concentration, an extraordinary coalition generated more than
-700,000 letters to the FCC opposing the change. As William Safire described
-marching <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">uncomfortably alongside CodePink Women for Peace and the
-National Rifle Association, between liberal Olympia Snowe and conservative
-Ted Stevens,</span>”</span> he formulated perhaps most simply just what was at
-stake: the concentration of power. And as he asked, <a class="indexterm" name="id2512899"></a>
+Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på. Som jeg vil forklare i
+sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri
+kultur</span>”</span>—ikke <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri</span>”</span> som i <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri bar</span>”</span>
+(for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
+programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2817381" href="#ftn.id2817381" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri</span>”</span> som i <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">talefrihet</span>”</span>, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fritt
+marked</span>”</span>, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">frihandel</span>”</span>, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>”</span>,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri vilje</span>”</span> og <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">frie valg</span>”</span>. 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 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>”</span>—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
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vi</span>”</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">dere</span>”</span> på høyresiden,
+men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
+definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
+du i denne forstand 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="id2817461"></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 mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
+mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen. Mens William
+Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
+Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
+konservative Ted Stevens</span>”</span>, formulerte han kanskje det enkleste
+uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han:
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2818092"></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="id2512922" href="#ftn.id2512922" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2818115" href="#ftn.id2818115" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-This idea is an element of the argument of <em class="citetitle">Free
-Culture</em>, though my focus is not just on the concentration of
-power produced by concentrations in ownership, but more importantly, if
-because less visibly, on the concentration of power produced by a radical
-change in the effective scope of the law. The law is changing; that change
-is altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry
-you—whether or not you care about the Internet, and whether you're on
-Safire's left or on his right. The inspiration for the title and for much
-of the argument of this book comes from the work of Richard Stallman and the
-Free Software Foundation. Indeed, as I reread Stallman's own work,
-especially the essays in <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
-I realize that all of the theoretical insights I develop here are insights
-Stallman described decades ago. One could thus well argue that this work is
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">merely</span>”</span> derivative.
+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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kun</span>”</span> er et avledet verk.
</p><p>
Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk. Arbeidet til en advokat
denne boken er skrevet.
</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.preface01" href="#preface01" class="para">1</a>] </sup>
David Pogue, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New
-York Times</em>, 30 January 2000.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2512807" href="#id2512807" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
+York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2817381" href="#id2817381" 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 id="ftn.id2512922" href="#id2512922" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
-Times</em>, 22 May 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="id2512933"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2818115" href="#id2818115" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
+Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="id2818126"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 0. 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
enn luft kunne fly. Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
begynte å bygge videre på den.
</p><p>
-At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American law held
-that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface of his land,
-but all the land below, down to the center of the earth, and all the space
-above, to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2569392" href="#ftn.id2569392" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> For many years, scholars had puzzled about how best
-to interpret the idea that rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean
-that you owned the stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and
-regular trespass?
+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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2818288" href="#ftn.id2818288" 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
+manns eiendom?
</p><p>
Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
USA—dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
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
569407"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2569432"></a><p>
-In 1945, these questions became a federal case. When North Carolina farmers
-Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens because of low-flying
-military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently flew into the barn
-walls and died), the Causbys filed a lawsuit saying that the government was
-trespassing on their land. The airplanes, of course, never touched the
-surface of the Causbys' land. But if, as Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had
-said, their land reached to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards,</span>”</span>
-then the government was trespassing on their property, and the Causbys
-wanted it to stop.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
569462"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2569468"></a><p>
-The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had declared
-the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the heavens,
-then Congress's declaration could well have been an unconstitutional
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> of property without compensation. The Court
-acknowledged that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of
-the land extended to the periphery of the universe.</span>”</span> But Justice
-Douglas had no patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph,
-hundreds of years of property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court,
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
818308"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2818334"></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
+døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
+eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
+hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
+strakk seg <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>”</span> så hadde regjeringen
+trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
+dette.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
874198"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2874204"></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
+grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ta</span>”</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
+Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
+rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>”</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
+tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner. I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
+av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
[Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden. Luften er en
offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært. Hvis det ikke var
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="id2569512" href="#ftn.id2569512" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2874255" href="#ftn.id2874255" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Common sense revolts at the idea.</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
-
-This is how the law usually works. Not often this abruptly or impatiently,
-but eventually, this is how it works. It was Douglas's style not to
-dither. Other justices would have blathered on for pages to reach the
-conclusion that Douglas holds in a single line: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Common sense revolts
-at the idea.</span>”</span> But whether it takes pages or a few words, it is the
-special genius of a common law system, as ours is, that the law adjusts to
-the technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were
-as solid as rock in one age crumble in another.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569579"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2569586"></a><p>
-Or at least, this is how things happen when there's no one powerful on the
-other side of the change. The Causbys were just farmers. And though there
-were no doubt many like them who were upset by the growing traffic in the
-air (though one hopes not many chickens flew themselves into walls), the
-Causbys of the world would find it very hard to unite and stop the idea, and
-the technology, that the Wright brothers had birthed. The Wright brothers
-spat airplanes into the technological meme pool; the idea then spread like a
-virus in a chicken coop; farmers like the Causbys found themselves
-surrounded by <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">what seemed reasonable</span>”</span> given the technology
-that the Wrights had produced. They could stand on their farms, dead
-chickens in hand, and shake their fists at these newfangled technologies all
-they wanted. They could call their representatives or even file a
-lawsuit. But in the end, the force of what seems <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">obvious</span>”</span> to
-everyone else—the power of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">common sense</span>”</span>—would
-prevail. Their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">private interest</span>”</span> would not be allowed to
-defeat an obvious public gain.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>”</span>
+</p><p>
+
+Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer. Ikke ofte like brått eller
+utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer. Det var ikke
+stilen til Douglas å utbrodere. Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
+sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
+linje: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>”</span>. Men uansett om
+det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
+et rettspraksis-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="id2874341"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2874348"></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
+for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
+finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
+Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden. Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
+inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
+i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">det
+synes rimelig</span>”</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
+De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
+knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville. De kunne ringe sine
+representanter eller til og med saksøke. Men når alt kom til alt, ville
+kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>”</span> for alle andre—makten
+til <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>”</span>—ville vinne frem. Deres
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>”</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
+åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
</p><p>
Edwin Howard Armstrong er en av USAs glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp
på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham
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="id2569643"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569652"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569659"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2874411"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874420"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874427"></a>
</p><p>
Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde
radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
</p><p>
-On November 5, 1935, he demonstrated the technology at a meeting of the
-Institute of Radio Engineers at the Empire State Building in New York
-City. He tuned his radio dial across a range of AM stations, until the radio
-locked on a broadcast that he had arranged from seventeen miles away. The
-radio fell totally silent, as if dead, and then with a clarity no one else
-in that room had ever heard from an electrical device, it produced the sound
-of an announcer's voice: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New
-York, operating on frequency modulation at two and a half meters.</span>”</span>
+Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
+for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City. Han vred
+radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
+kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna. Radioen ble helt
+stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
+gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
+opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
+som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>”</span>
</p><p>
Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-A glass of water was poured before the microphone in Yonkers; it sounded
-like a glass of water being poured. … A paper was crumpled and torn;
-it sounded like paper and not like a crackling forest fire. … Sousa
-marches were played from records and a piano solo and guitar number were
-performed. … The music was projected with a live-ness rarely if ever
-heard before from a radio <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">music box.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2569719" href="#ftn.id2569719" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
+Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
+et glass som ble fylt opp. … Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
+det 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-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>”</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2874504" href="#ftn.id2874504" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
</p><p>
-RCA's president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong's, was eager that
-Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. So Sarnoff was
-quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device that removed static
-from <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radio.</span>”</span> But when Armstrong demonstrated his invention,
-Sarnoff was not pleased. <a class="indexterm" name="id2569761"></a>
+Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
+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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radio.</span>”</span>. Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
+oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2874549"></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="id2569671" href="#ftn.id2569671" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2874439" href="#ftn.id2874439" 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="id2569805"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2874594"></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="id2569831" href="#ftn.id2569831" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
+makt.<sup>[<a name="id2874620" href="#ftn.id2874620" 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="id2569847" href="#ftn.id2569847" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
569886"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2874636" href="#ftn.id2874636" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
874676"></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="id2569968" href="#ftn.id2569968" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
+tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2816663" href="#ftn.id2816663" 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
Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
har introdusert.
</p><p>
-We can glimpse a sense of this change by distinguishing between commercial
-and noncommercial culture, and by mapping the law's regulation of each. By
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">commercial culture</span>”</span> I mean that part of our culture that is
-produced and sold or produced to be sold. By <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">noncommercial
-culture</span>”</span> I mean all the rest. When old men sat around parks or on
-street corners telling stories that kids and others consumed, that was
-noncommercial culture. When Noah Webster published his
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Reader,</span>”</span> or Joel Barlow his poetry, that was commercial
-culture. <a class="indexterm" name="id2570044"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2570052"></a>
-</p><p>
-At the beginning of our history, and for just about the whole of our
-tradition, noncommercial culture was essentially unregulated. Of course, if
-your stories were lewd, or if your song disturbed the peace, then the law
-might intervene. But the law was never directly concerned with the creation
-or spread of this form of culture, and it left this culture
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free.</span>”</span> The ordinary ways in which ordinary individuals shared
-and transformed their culture—telling stories, reenacting scenes from
-plays or TV, participating in fan clubs, sharing music, making
-tapes—were left alone by the law.
+Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
+ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
+Med <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>”</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
+er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt. Med
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>”</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
+menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
+unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur. Da Noah
+Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Reader</span>”</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
+så var det kommersiell kultur. <a class="indexterm" name="id2816748"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2816758"></a>
+</p><p>
+Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
+kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert. Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
+utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
+Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
+denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fri</span>”</span>. Den
+vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
+kultur—historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
+delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter—ble ikke
+styrt av lovverket.
</p><p>
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="id2570088" href="#ftn.id2570088" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2875032" href="#ftn.id2875032" 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="id2570127" href="#ftn.id2570127" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
+fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2875074" href="#ftn.id2875074" 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
teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
</p><p>
-It doesn't seem this way to many. The battles over copyright and the
-Internet seem remote to most. To the few who follow them, they seem mainly
-about a much simpler brace of questions—whether <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span>
-will be permitted, and whether <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> will be
-protected. The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">war</span>”</span> that has been waged against the
-technologies of the Internet—what Motion Picture Association of
-America (MPAA) president Jack Valenti calls his <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">own terrorist
-war</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2570266" href="#ftn.id2570266" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—has been framed as a
-battle about the rule of law and respect for property. To know which side to
-take in this war, most think that we need only decide whether we're for
-property or against it.
-</p><p>
-If those really were the choices, then I would be with Jack Valenti and the
-content industry. I, too, am a believer in property, and especially in the
-importance of what Mr. Valenti nicely calls <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative
-property.</span>”</span> I believe that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> is wrong, and that
-the law, properly tuned, should punish <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> whether on or
-off the Internet.
-</p><p>
-But those simple beliefs mask a much more fundamental question and a much
-more dramatic change. My fear is that unless we come to see this change, the
-war to rid the world of Internet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirates</span>”</span> will also rid our
-culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start.
+Det ser ikke slik ut for mange. Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
+internettet er fjernt for de fleste. For de få som følger dem, virker de i
+hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål—hvorvidt
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>”</span> vil bli beskyttet. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Krigen</span>”</span> som
+har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet—det presidenten for
+Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2875215" href="#ftn.id2875215" 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.
+</p><p>
+Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
+Valenti og innholdsindustrien. Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
+på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kreativ
+eiendomsrett</span>”</span>. Jeg tror at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> er galt,
+og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span>,
+både på og utenfor internettet.
+</p><p>
+Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
+og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
+legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
+internettets <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">pirater</span>”</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
+har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
</p><p>
Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
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="id2570328" href="#ftn.id2570328" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2875294" href="#ftn.id2875294" 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.
utsiden har det ikke. Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
vår tradisjon.
</p><p>
-The story that follows is about this war. Is it not about the
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">centrality of technology</span>”</span> to ordinary life. I don't believe in
-gods, digital or otherwise. Nor is it an effort to demonize any individual
-or group, for neither do I believe in a devil, corporate or otherwise. It is
-not a morality tale. Nor is it a call to jihad against an industry.
+Historien som følger er om denne krigen. Er det ikke om <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">betydningen
+av teknologi</span>”</span> i vanlig liv. Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
+eller andre typer. Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
+individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
+eller på annen måte. Det er ikke en moralsk historie. Ei heller er det et
+rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
</p><p>
Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
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="id2570409"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2570415"></a><p>
-Like the Causbys' battle, this war is, in part, about
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> The property of this war is not as tangible as the
-Causbys', and no innocent chicken has yet to lose its life. Yet the ideas
-surrounding this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> are as obvious to most as the
-Causbys' claim about the sacredness of their farm was to them. We are the
-Causbys. Most of us take for granted the extraordinarily powerful claims
-that the owners of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> now assert. Most of
-us, like the Causbys, treat these claims as obvious. And hence we, like the
-Causbys, object when a new technology interferes with this property. It is
-as plain to us as it was to them that the new technologies of the Internet
-are <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">trespassing</span>”</span> upon legitimate claims of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> It is as plain to us as it was to them that the law
-should intervene to stop this trespass.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570453"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2570459"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875380"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875386"></a><p>
+Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>”</span>. 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>”</span> like
+åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres
+bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav
+som eierne av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>”</span> nå hevder. De fleste
+av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som åpenbare. Og dermed
+protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper inn i denne
+eiendomsretten. Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at de nye
+teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tar seg til rette</span>”</span> mot legitime
+krav til <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>”</span>. 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="id2875437"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875444"></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
motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
</p><p>
-My hope is to push this common sense along. I have become increasingly
-amazed by the power of this idea of intellectual property and, more
-importantly, its power to disable critical thought by policy makers and
-citizens. There has never been a time in our history when more of our
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">culture</span>”</span> was as <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">owned</span>”</span> as it is now. And yet
-there has never been a time when the concentration of power to control the
-<span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span> of culture has been as unquestioningly accepted as
-it is now.
+Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre. Jeg har blitt stadig mer
+overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
+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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kultur</span>”</span>
+som har vært <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eid</span>”</span> enn det er nå. Og likevel har aldri før
+konsentrasjonen av makt til å 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="id2
570550"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2570556"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
875541"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875548"></a><p>
-I don't mean to be mysterious. My own views are resolved. I believe it was
-right for common sense to revolt against the extremism of the Causbys. I
-believe it would be right for common sense to revolt against the extreme
-claims made today on behalf of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>”</span> What
-the law demands today is increasingly as silly as a sheriff arresting an
-airplane for trespass. But the consequences of this silliness will be much
-more profound.
+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
+Causbyene. Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
+mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">immaterielle
+rettigheter</span>”</span>. Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
+om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
+eiendom. Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
+dyptgripende.
</p><p>
-The struggle that rages just now centers on two ideas: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span>
-and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> My aim in this book's next two parts is to
-explore these two ideas.
+Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> og <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendom</span>”</span>. Mitt mål med
+denne bokens neste to deler er å utforske disse to idéene.
</p><p>
Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker. Jeg ønsker ikke
å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
</p><p>
-The two sections set up the core claim of this book: that while the Internet
-has indeed produced something fantastic and new, our government, pushed by
-big media to respond to this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">something new,</span>”</span> is destroying
-something very old. Rather than understanding the changes the Internet might
-permit, and rather than taking time to let <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">common sense</span>”</span>
-resolve how best to respond, we are allowing those most threatened by the
-changes to use their power to change the law—and more importantly, to
-use their power to change something fundamental about who we have always
-been.
+De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
+internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
+myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">noe
+nytt</span>”</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt. I stedet for å forstå
+endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
+som trengs for å la <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>”</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
+på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
+til å endre loven—og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
+fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
</p><p>
Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene. Vi tillater det på grunn av at
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 id="ftn.id2569392" href="#id2569392" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2818288" href="#id2818288" 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 id="ftn.id2569512" href="#id2569512" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
-United States v. Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. The Court did find that
-there could be a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taking</span>”</span> if the government's use of its land
-effectively destroyed the value of the Causbys' land. This example was
-suggested to me by Keith Aoki's wonderful piece, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">(Intellectual)
-Property and Sovereignty: Notes Toward a Cultural Geography of
-Authorship,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996):
-1293, 1333. See also Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em>
-(Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1984), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2569546"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569541"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569719" href="#id2569719" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874255" href="#id2874255" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
+USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
+å <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">ta</span>”</span> 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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
+Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>”</span>,
+<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="id2874294"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874290"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874504" href="#id2874504" 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 id="ftn.id2569671" href="#id2569671" class="para">7</a>] </sup> See <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>”</span>
-First Electronic Church of America, at www.webstationone.com/fecha,
-
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569831" href="#id2569831" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569847" href="#id2569847" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874439" href="#id2874439" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>”</span>
+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 id="ftn.id2874620" href="#id2874620" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874636" href="#id2874636" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569968" href="#id2569968" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816663" href="#id2816663" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>”</span> Pew Internet and American
-Life Project, 15 April 2003: 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570088" href="#id2570088" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
-This is not the only purpose of copyright, though it is the overwhelmingly
-primary purpose of the copyright established in the federal constitution.
-State copyright law historically protected not just the commercial interest
-in publication, but also a privacy interest. By granting authors the
-exclusive right to first publication, state copyright law gave authors the
-power to control the spread of facts about them. See Samuel D. Warren and
-Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>”</span> Harvard Law Review 4
-(1890): 193, 198–200. <a class="indexterm" name="id2569729"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570127" href="#id2570127" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
+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 id="ftn.id2875032" href="#id2875032" 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
+interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser. Ved
+å 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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right to
+Privacy</span>”</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200.
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2874477"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875074" href="#id2875074" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
-Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2570135"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570266" href="#id2570266" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2875082"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875215" href="#id2875215" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New
-York Times</em>, 17 January 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570328" href="#id2570328" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
+York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875294" href="#id2875294" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2570339"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part I. “PIRACY”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">PIRACY</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="“PIRACY”"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
-Since the inception of the law regulating creative property, there has been
-a war against <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span> The precise contours of this concept,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is
-easy to capture. As Lord Mansfield wrote in a case that extended the reach
-of English copyright law to include sheet music,
+<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2875304"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del I. “Piratvirksomhet”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="“Piratvirksomhet”"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
+Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
+en krig mot <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span>. De presise konturene av dette
+konseptet, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp,
+men bildet av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive. Som Lord Mansfield skrev
+i en sak som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere
+noteark,
</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="id2570692" href="#ftn.id2570692" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570707"></a></blockquote></div><p>
-
-Today we are in the middle of another <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">war</span>”</span> against
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span> The Internet has provoked this war. The Internet
-makes possible the efficient spread of content. Peer-to-peer (p2p) file
-sharing is among the most efficient of the efficient technologies the
-Internet enables. Using distributed intelligence, p2p systems facilitate the
-easy spread of content in a way unimagined a generation ago.
-
-</p><p>
-This efficiency does not respect the traditional lines of copyright. The
-network doesn't discriminate between the sharing of copyrighted and
-uncopyrighted content. Thus has there been a vast amount of sharing of
-copyrighted content. That sharing in turn has excited the war, as copyright
-owners fear the sharing will <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rob the author of the profit.</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
-The warriors have turned to the courts, to the legislatures, and
-increasingly to technology to defend their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> against
-this <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span> A generation of Americans, the warriors warn, is
-being raised to believe that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> should be
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free.</span>”</span> Forget tattoos, never mind body piercing—our kids
-are becoming <span class="emphasis"><em>thieves</em></span>!
-</p><p>
-There's no doubt that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> is wrong, and that pirates
-should be punished. But before we summon the executioners, we should put
-this notion of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> in some context. For as the concept is
-increasingly used, at its core is an extraordinary idea that is almost
-certainly wrong.
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2875712" href="#ftn.id2875712" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875726"></a></blockquote></div><p>
+
+I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">krig</span>”</span> mot
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
+Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold. Peer-to-peer (p2p)
+fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
+internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
+muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
+for en generasjon siden.
+
+</p><p>
+Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
+opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
+vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Denne
+delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
+opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
+overskuddet.</span>”</span>
+</p><p>
+Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
+grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendom</span>”</span> mot denne
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>”</span>. En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
+krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eiendom</span>”</span> skal være
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gratis</span>”</span>. Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
+kroppspiercing—våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
+</p><p>
+Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> er galt, og at
+pirater bør straffes. Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>”</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng. For mens begrepet
+blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
+helt sikkert er feil.
</p><p>
Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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="id2570807"></a><p>
-This view runs deep within the current debates. It is what NYU law professor
-Rochelle Dreyfuss criticizes as the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>”</span>
-theory of creative property<sup>[<a name="id2570821" href="#ftn.id2570821" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup> —if
-there is value, then someone must have a right to that value. It is the
-perspective that led a composers' rights organization, ASCAP, to sue the
-Girl Scouts for failing to pay for the songs that girls sang around Girl
-Scout campfires.<sup>[<a name="id2570766" href="#ftn.id2570766" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> There was
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">value</span>”</span> (the songs) so there must have been a
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span>—even against the Girl Scouts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570882"></a><p>
-
-This idea is certainly a possible understanding of how creative property
-should work. It might well be a possible design for a system of law
-protecting creative property. But the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>”</span>
-theory of creative property has never been America's theory of creative
-property. It has never taken hold within our law.
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2875848"></a><p>
+Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor
+Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
+rettighet</span>”</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2875864" href="#ftn.id2875864" 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="id2875887" href="#ftn.id2875887" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">verdi</span>”</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rettighet</span>”</span>—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875931"></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
+lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter. Men teorien om
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>”</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
+aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter. It har aldri stått rot
+i vårt lovverk.
</p><p>
I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
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="id2570932"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2570938"></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
-matter much if copyright law regulated only <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copying,</span>”</span> when the
-law regulates as broadly and obscurely as it does, the extension matters a
-lot. The burden of this law now vastly outweighs any original
-benefit—certainly as it affects noncommercial creativity, and
-increasingly as it affects commercial creativity as well. Thus, as we'll see
-more clearly in the chapters below, the law's role is less and less to
-support creativity, and more and more to protect certain industries against
-competition. Just at the time digital technology could unleash an
-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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rise of the Creative Class.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2570971" href="#ftn.id2570971" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary
-rise of regulation of this creative class.
-</p><p>
-These burdens make no sense in our tradition. We should begin by
-understanding that tradition a bit more and by placing in their proper
-context the current battles about behavior labeled <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy.</span>”</span>
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570692" href="#id2570692" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875988"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875994"></a><p>
+Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
+lovens virkeområde. Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
+kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
+utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kopiering</span>”</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
+bredt og obskurt som den gjør. Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
+fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt—helt klart slik den påvirker
+ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
+kommersiell kreativitet. Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
+følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
+å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse. Akkurat på tidspunktet da
+digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
+og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
+sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
+straffer. Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fremveksten
+av den kreative klasse</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2876033" href="#ftn.id2876033" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
+Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
+kreative klassen.
+</p><p>
+Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon. Vi bør begynne med å forstå
+den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
+merkelappen <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875712" href="#id2875712" class="para">15</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 id="ftn.id2570821" href="#id2570821" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875864" href="#id2875864" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
-See Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
+Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
in the Pepsi Generation,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570766" href="#id2570766" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875887" href="#id2875887" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
-Up,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21 August 1996,
-
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
+Up,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
+
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
-Globe</em>, 24 November 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2570865"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570971" href="#id2570971" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
+Globe</em>, 24. november 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2875912"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876033" href="#id2876033" 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
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="id2571009"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571018"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><p>
+vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2876075"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2876083"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><p>
I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
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
Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
nesten instinktivt 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 grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2571144" href="#ftn.id2571144" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
+var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2876213" href="#ftn.id2876213" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Disney's then partner, and one of animation's most extraordinary talents, Ub
-Iwerks, put it more strongly: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I have never been so thrilled in my
-life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571166"></a>
+Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
+talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
+begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
+bra.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2876240"></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
</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="id2571234" href="#ftn.id2571234" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> and both are built upon a common song as a
+Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2876308" href="#ftn.id2876308" 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
</p><p>
This <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">borrowing</span>”</span> was nothing unique, either for Disney or for
the industry. Disney was always parroting the feature-length mainstream
-films of his day.<sup>[<a name="id2571299" href="#ftn.id2571299" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> So did many
+films of his day.<sup>[<a name="id2876376" href="#ftn.id2876376" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> So did many
others. Early cartoons are filled with knockoffs—slight variations on
winning themes; retellings of ancient stories. The key to success was the
brilliance of the differences. With Disney, it was sound that gave his
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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
512165"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
876501"></a><p>
This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should remember and
celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no creativity except
this kind. We don't need to go that far to recognize its importance. We
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="id2512188" href="#ftn.id2512188" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
+copyrighted.<sup>[<a name="id2876522" href="#ftn.id2876522" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had
an <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive right</span>”</span> to control certain uses of the work. To
use this copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the
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</span>”</span> and building
-from them.<sup>[<a name="id2571828" href="#ftn.id2571828" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
+from them.<sup>[<a name="id2876748" href="#ftn.id2876748" 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
and you have to stick to them.</span>”</span> There are things Superman
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">cannot</span>”</span> do. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">As a creator, it's frustrating having to
stick to some parameters which are fifty years old.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
571868"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
876787"></a><p>
Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen. Noen sier at det
nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
forklarer denne reduksjonen. Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
produktivt. Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
-bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2571893" href="#ftn.id2571893" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
+bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2876813" href="#ftn.id2876813" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span> I am one of
those celebrants. I believe in the value of property in general, and I also
believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2571987" href="#ftn.id2571987" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> A
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2876906" href="#ftn.id2876906" 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>
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 class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571144" href="#id2571144" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876213" href="#id2876213" 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 id="ftn.id2571234" href="#id2571234" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876308" href="#id2876308" 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>: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Steamboat
-Bill,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>”</span> (Delille), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mischief
-Makers</span>”</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry No. 1</span>”</span> (Baron), and
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>”</span> (Lakay). A sixth song, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Turkey in the
-Straw,</span>”</span> was already in the public domain. Letter from David Smith to
-Harry Surden, 10 July 2003, on file with author.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571299" href="#id2571299" class="para">21</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 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>”</span> (Delille),
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>”</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
+No. 1</span>”</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>”</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>”</span> 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 id="ftn.id2876376" href="#id2876376" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
He was also a fan of the public domain. See Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Mouse
that Ate the Public Domain,</span>”</span> Findlaw, 5 March 2002, at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2512188" href="#id2512188" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876522" href="#id2876522" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
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 id="ftn.id2571828" href="#id2571828" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876748" href="#id2876748" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571893" href="#id2571893" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876813" href="#id2876813" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
See Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
collectively if they set aside their individual self-interest and decide not
to press their legal rights. This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma
solved.</span>”</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571987" href="#id2571987" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876906" href="#id2876906" 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
Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> rights—copyright, patents, trademark, and
trade-secret—but the nature of those rights is very different.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2572007"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
2. CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>2. CHAPTER TWO: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2876926"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for
producing what we would call <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">photographs.</span>”</span> Appropriately
enough, they were called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">daguerreotypes.</span>”</span> The process was
complicated and expensive, and the field was thus limited to professionals
and a few zealous and wealthy amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre
Association that helped regulate the industry, as do all such associations,
-by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.) <a class="indexterm" name="id2572216"></a>
+by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.) <a class="indexterm" name="id2877135"></a>
</p><p>
Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong. This
pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">automatic
be kept wet, the process still remained expensive and cumbersome. In the
1870s, dry plates were developed, making it easier to separate the taking of
a picture from its developing. These were still plates of glass, and thus it
-was still not a process within reach of most amateurs. <a class="indexterm" name="id2572241"></a>
+was still not a process within reach of most amateurs. <a class="indexterm" name="id2877160"></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of
it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis
of its simplicity. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You press the button and we do the
-rest.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2572287" href="#ftn.id2572287" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in
-<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2572300"></a>
+rest.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2877206" href="#ftn.id2877206" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in
+<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2877220"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
kunnskap om kunstarten. Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
-et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2569909" href="#ftn.id2569909" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
+et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2874682" href="#ftn.id2874682" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
For $25 kunne alle ta bilder. Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
om dagen. Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
-prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2572366" href="#ftn.id2572366" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
-samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2572375" href="#ftn.id2572375" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
572384"></a><p>
+prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2877285" href="#ftn.id2877285" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
+samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2877294" href="#ftn.id2877294" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
877304"></a><p>
The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It
provided the 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.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2572317" href="#ftn.id2572317" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
+without [literary] interpretation or bias.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2877237" href="#ftn.id2877237" 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
fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
kursen til fotograferingen betydelig. Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
-trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2572449" href="#ftn.id2572449" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
+trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2877368" href="#ftn.id2877368" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
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="id2
572486"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
877406"></a><p>
På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt. Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område. (Louis
Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
-annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2572512" href="#ftn.id2572512" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
+annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2877431" href="#ftn.id2877431" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
begrensninger enn resten av oss. Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
-fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2572566" href="#ftn.id2572566" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
+fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2877486" href="#ftn.id2877486" 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,
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="id2
572668"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2572676"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
877580"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2877588"></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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Five years ago, a good
real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get
-professional quality for $595.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2572694" href="#ftn.id2572694" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup>
+professional quality for $595.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2877606" href="#ftn.id2877606" 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
Just Think!, puts it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">is the ability … to understand, analyze,
and deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the
way media works, the way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and the
-way people access it.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572734"></a>
+way people access it.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2877646"></a>
</p><p>
This may seem like an odd way to think about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">literacy.</span>”</span> For
most people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway
</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="id2572761" href="#ftn.id2572761" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
+generally,<sup>[<a name="id2877673" href="#ftn.id2877673" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
to understand the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">grammar</span>”</span> of media. For just as there is a
grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as
kids learn how to write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to
den. En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
skrevet. En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
reflektere over det en har laget.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
572795"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
877707"></a><p>
This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as
Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School
of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the
placement of objects, color, … rhythm, pacing, and
-texture.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2572729" href="#ftn.id2572729" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open
+texture.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2877641" href="#ftn.id2877641" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open
up an interactive space where a story is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">played</span>”</span> as well as
experienced, that grammar changes. The simple control of narrative is lost,
and so other techniques are necessary. Author 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="id2572881" href="#ftn.id2572881" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
572908"></a><p>
+obvious, even to a wildly successful author.<sup>[<a name="id2877793" href="#ftn.id2877793" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
877820"></a><p>
This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t
is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If
enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this
literacy in particular, is to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">empower people to choose the
appropriate language for what they need to create or
-express.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2572977" href="#ftn.id2572977" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable
+express.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2877889" href="#ftn.id2877889" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable
students <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to communicate in the language of the twenty-first
-century.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2572996" href="#ftn.id2572996" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
573003"></a><p>
+century.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2877908" href="#ftn.id2877908" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
877915"></a><p>
Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
andre. Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly
come to expect it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">news as entertainment,</span>”</span> even if the
entertainment is tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
573204"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2573210"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
878116"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878122"></a><p>
But in addition to this produced news about the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tragedy of September
11,</span>”</span> those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different
production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same
they would impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span> result; they tried to persuade each other of the
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right</span>”</span> result, and in criminal cases at least, they had to
-agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to an end.<sup>[<a name="id2573361" href="#ftn.id2573361" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
+agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to an end.<sup>[<a name="id2878273" href="#ftn.id2878273" 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="id2573378" href="#ftn.id2573378" 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="id2878290" href="#ftn.id2878290" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">democratic deliberation</span>”</span> to occur.
</p><p>
mot å diskutere politikk. Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
-ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2573414" href="#ftn.id2573414" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
+ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2878326" href="#ftn.id2878326" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
</p><p>
Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
fra hos noen få blogger. Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
-lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2573471"></a>
+lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2878383"></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
bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and more instances of
the same <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">misspeaking</span>”</span> emerged. Finally, the story broke back
into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to resign as senate
-majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2573497" href="#ftn.id2573497" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2573508"></a>
+majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2878409" href="#ftn.id2878409" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2878420"></a>
</p><p>
Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
told me. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of
interest, or the conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know
you can sort of get it out of the way.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
573583"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
878495"></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="id2573347" href="#ftn.id2573347" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
+employees.<sup>[<a name="id2878259" href="#ftn.id2878259" 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
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="id2573630" href="#ftn.id2573630" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it drives readers to read
+seen.<sup>[<a name="id2878542" href="#ftn.id2878542" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it drives readers to read
across the range of accounts and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">triangulate,</span>”</span> as Winer puts
it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">communicating directly with our
constituency, and the middle man is out of it</span>”</span>—with all the
predicts, for public figures and increasingly for private figures as
well. It's not clear that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">journalism</span>”</span> is happy about
this—some journalists have been told to curtail their
-blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2573666" href="#ftn.id2573666" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear that we are
+blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2878578" href="#ftn.id2878578" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear that we are
still in transition. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
exercises,</span>”</span> 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
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="id2
573754"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
878666"></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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">human learning and … the
creation of knowledge ecologies for creating … innovation.</span>”</span>
FS/OSS-program til å fungere. Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
</p><p>
-This opportunity creates a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">completely new kind of learning
-platform,</span>”</span> as Brown describes. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">As soon as you start doing
-that, you … unleash a free collage on the community, so that other
-people can start looking at your code, tinkering with it, trying it out,
-seeing if they can improve it.</span>”</span> Each effort is a kind of
-apprenticeship. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Open source becomes a major apprenticeship
-platform.</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
-In this process, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the concrete things you tinker with are abstract.
-They are code.</span>”</span> Kids are <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">shifting to the ability to tinker in
-the abstract, and this tinkering is no longer an isolated activity that
-you're doing in your garage. You are tinkering with a community
-platform. … You are tinkering with other people's stuff. The more you
-tinker the more you improve.</span>”</span> The more you improve, the more you
-learn.
-</p><p>
-This same thing happens with content, too. And it happens in the same
-collaborative way when that content is part of the Web. As Brown puts it,
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Web [is] the first medium that truly honors multiple forms of
-intelligence.</span>”</span> Earlier technologies, such as the typewriter or word
-processors, helped amplify text. But the Web amplifies much more than
-text. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Web … says if you are musical, if you are artistic,
-if you are visual, if you are interested in film … [then] there is a
-lot you can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor these
-multiple forms of intelligence.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573895"></a><p>
+Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>”</span>, i
+følge Brown. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så … slipper
+du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
+folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
+forbedre den</span>”</span>. Og hver innsats er et slags læretid. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Åpen
+kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>”</span>.
+</p><p>
+I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
+er kildekode</span>”</span>. Unger <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
+det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
+gjør i garasjen din. Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. … Du
+fikler med andre folks greier. Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
+du.</span>”</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
+</p><p>
+Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold. Og det skjer på samme
+samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet. Som Brown
+formulerer det, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
+til flere former for intelligens</span>”</span>. Tidligere teknologier, slik som
+skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst. Men nettet
+fremmer mye mer enn tekst. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Nettet … si hvis du er musikalsk,
+hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
+…da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet. Det kan
+fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>”</span>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878824"></a><p>
Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
</p><p>
-These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars.
-Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”">10</a>) has developed a
-powerful argument in favor of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">right to tinker</span>”</span> as it
-applies to computer science and to knowledge in general.<sup>[<a name="id2573945" href="#ftn.id2573945" 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>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This is where education in the twenty-first century is going,</span>”</span>
-Brown explains. We need to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">understand how kids who grow up digital
-think and want to learn.</span>”</span>
-</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Yet,</span>”</span> as Brown continued, and as the balance of this book will
-evince, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we are building a legal system that completely suppresses the
-natural tendencies of today's digital kids. … We're building an
-architecture that unleashes 60 percent of the brain [and] a legal system
-that closes down that part of the brain.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
573993"></a><p>
+Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
+Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>) har utviklet et
+kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>”</span> slik det
+gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2878875" href="#ftn.id2878875" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det
+handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
+loven.
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
+på vei</span>”</span>, forklarer Brown. Vi må <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
+vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>”</span>.
+</p><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Likevel</span>”</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
+føre bevis for, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
+undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. … We
+bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
+system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>”</span>.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
878934"></a><p>
Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
denne kreativiteten over alt. Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
teknologien.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No way to run a culture,</span>”</span> as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet
-in chapter <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>,
-quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572287" href="#id2572287" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>”</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
+møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
+nedstemthet.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877206" href="#id2877206" class="para">26</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 id="ftn.id2569909" href="#id2569909" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874682" href="#id2874682" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
-Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id2572339"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572366" href="#id2572366" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
+Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id2877259"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877285" href="#id2877285" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572375" href="#id2572375" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877294" href="#id2877294" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572317" href="#id2572317" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877237" href="#id2877237" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572449" href="#id2572449" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877368" href="#id2877368" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
<em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
<em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572512" href="#id2572512" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877431" href="#id2877431" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2572523"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572532"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572566" href="#id2572566" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2877443"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2877451"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877486" href="#id2877486" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
See Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>”</span>
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 id="ftn.id2572694" href="#id2572694" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877606" href="#id2877606" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>”</span>
cadalyst, February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572761" href="#id2572761" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877673" href="#id2877673" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Findings on
Family and TV Study,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May
1997, B6.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572729" href="#id2572729" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877641" href="#id2877641" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2572853"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572862"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572881" href="#id2572881" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2877765"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2877774"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877793" href="#id2877793" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
See Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>”</span> E!online,
4 November 2000, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Timeline,</span>”</span> 22 November 2000, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572977" href="#id2572977" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877889" href="#id2877889" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2572984"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572996" href="#id2572996" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2877896"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877908" href="#id2877908" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573361" href="#id2573361" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878273" href="#id2878273" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
America</em>, bk. 1, overs. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
2000), kap. 16.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573378" href="#id2573378" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878290" href="#id2878290" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573414" href="#id2573414" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878326" href="#id2878326" class="para">42</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 id="ftn.id2573497" href="#id2573497" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878409" href="#id2878409" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
Pot,</span>”</span> New York Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573347" href="#id2573347" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878259" href="#id2878259" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573630" href="#id2573630" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878542" href="#id2878542" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
February 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed,
but Strong Overall,</span>”</span> Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573666" href="#id2573666" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878578" href="#id2878578" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
See Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Not
request. Last year Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>
reporter, was fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a
pseudonym, that dealt with some of the issues and people he was
-covering.</span>”</span>) <a class="indexterm" name="id2573710"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573945" href="#id2573945" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
+covering.</span>”</span>) <a class="indexterm" name="id2878622"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878875" href="#id2878875" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Technological
-Access Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>”</span>
+Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Technological Access
+Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2574039"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2878984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi. Selv om han ikke var
direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
</p><p>
-Search engines are a measure of a network's intimacy. Google brought the
-Internet much closer to all of us by fantastically improving the quality of
-search on the network. Specialty search engines can do this even better. The
-idea of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intranet</span>”</span> search engines, search engines that search
-within the network of a particular institution, is to provide users of that
-institution with better access to material from that institution.
-Businesses do this all the time, enabling employees to have access to
-material that people outside the business can't get. Universities do it as
-well.
+Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
+brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
+kvaliteten på søk i nettverket. Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
+enda bedre. Ideen med <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intranett</span>”</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
+kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
+brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
+institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
+til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
+i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
</p><p>
Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv. For eksempel
har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
forbauset.
</p><p>
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">It was absurd,</span>”</span> he told me. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">I don't think I did
-anything wrong. … I 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</span>”</span>—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
-had therefore <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">willfully</span>”</span> violated copyright laws. They
-demanded that he pay them the damages for his wrong. For cases of
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">willful infringement,</span>”</span> the Copyright Act specifies something
-lawyers call <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">statutory damages.</span>”</span> 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.
-</p><p>
-Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one other
-student at RPI, one at Michigan Technical University, and one at
-Princeton. Their situations were similar to Jesse's. Though each case was
-different in detail, the bottom line in each was exactly the same: huge
-demands for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">damages</span>”</span> 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
-<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="id2574308" href="#ftn.id2574308" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2574325"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>”</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
+ikke gjorde noe galt. … Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
+søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller … hva jeg hadde gjort med den. Jeg
+mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
+arbeidet til pirater. Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
+bruke</span>”</span>—igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
+hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
+hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
+få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
+og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
+</p><p>
+
+Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat. De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
+dermed <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">med vilje</span>”</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene. De krevde
+at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt. I saker
+med <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>”</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
+som advokater kaller <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>”</span>. Disse skadene
+tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
+Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
+opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
+$15 000 000.
+</p><p>
+Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
+RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
+situasjoner var lik den til Jesse. Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
+detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">erstatning</span>”</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på. Hvis du summerte
+opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
+saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>—seks ganger det
+<span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
+2001.<sup>[<a name="id2879283" href="#ftn.id2879283" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879301"></a><p>
Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre. De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
onkel var advokat. Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA. De krevde å få vite
hvor mye penger Jesse hadde. Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
sommerjobber og annet arbeid. De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
</p><p>
-The RIAA wanted Jesse to admit to doing something wrong. He refused. They
-wanted him to agree to an injunction that would essentially make it
-impossible for him to work in many fields of technology for the rest of his
-life. He refused. They made him understand that this process of being sued
-was not going to be pleasant. (As Jesse's father recounted to me, the chief
-lawyer on the case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">You don't want to
-pay another visit to a dentist like me.</span>”</span>) And throughout, the RIAA
-insisted it would not settle the case until it took every penny Jesse had
-saved.
+RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt. Han
+nektet. De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
+det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
+hans liv. Han nektet. De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
+bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig. (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
+meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Du ønsker
+ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>”</span>) Og gjennom det hele
+insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
+øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
</p><p>
Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene. De ønsket å kjempe.
moralen i et søksmål som dette? Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam. RIAA er
en spesielt mektig lobby. Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer
enn $1 million i året. Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.
-Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2574346" href="#ftn.id2574346" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
+Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2879364" href="#ftn.id2879364" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
påvirke og styre politikken. Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
-student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2574429" href="#ftn.id2574429" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
+student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2879409" href="#ftn.id2879409" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
for RIAA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
absurd det RIAA har gjort.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
-Jesse's parents betray a certain pride in their reluctant activist. As his
-father told me, Jesse <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">considers himself very conservative, and so do
-I. … He's not a tree hugger. … I think it's bizarre that they
-would pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the
-wrong message. And he wants to correct the record.</span>”</span>
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574308" href="#id2574308" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
+aktivist. Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
+konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. … Han er ingen
+treklemmer. … Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
+Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap. Og han ønsker å
+korrigere rullebladet.</span>”</span>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879283" href="#id2879283" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
Tim Goral, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
-Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, available at 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574346" href="#id2574346" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
+Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879364" href="#id2879364" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
(27–2042—Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574429" href="#id2574429" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Douglas Lichtman makes a related point in <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">KaZaA and
-Punishment,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10 September
-2003, A24.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="4. CHAPTER FOUR: “Pirates”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>4. CHAPTER FOUR: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Pirates</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
-If <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> means using the creative property of others without
-their permission—if <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>”</span> is
-true—then the history of the content industry is a history of
-piracy. Every important sector of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">big media</span>”</span> today—film,
-records, radio, and cable TV—was born of a kind of piracy so
-defined. The consistent story is how last generation's pirates join this
-generation's country club—until now.
-</p><div class="section" title="4.1. Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
-
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id2574530" href="#ftn.id2574530" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">trust,</span>”</span> the Motion Pictures
-Patents Company, and were based on Thomas Edison's creative
-property—patents. Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this
-creative property gave him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it
-demanded.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879409" href="#id2879409" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">KaZaA and
+Punishment,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
+10. september 2003, A24.
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Pirater</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
+Hvis <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>”</span> betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen
+til andre uten deres tillatelse—hvis <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
+rettighet</span>”</span> er sant—da er historien om innholdsindustrien en
+historie om piratvirksomhet. Hver eneste viktige sektor av <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">store
+medier</span>”</span> i dag—film, plater, radio og kabel-TV—kom fra en
+slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen. Den konsekvente fortellingen
+er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne generasjonens
+borgerskap—inntil nå.
+</p><div class="section" title="4.1. Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
+
+Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2879522" href="#ftn.id2879522" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
+California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
+kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
+Edison. Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
+monopol-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">kartell</span>”</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
+basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter—patenter. Edison
+stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
+ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
</p><p>
Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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="id2574600" href="#ftn.id2574600" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574633"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574639"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574645"></a>
+defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id2879603" href="#ftn.id2879603" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879635"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879642"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879648"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">independents,</span>”</span> were companies
like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
resisted. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
`accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
-sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2574666" href="#ftn.id2574666" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to flee the East
+sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2879669" href="#ftn.id2879669" 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.
</p><p>
-Of course, California grew quickly, and the effective enforcement of federal
-law eventually spread west. But because patents grant the patent holder a
-truly <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited</span>”</span> monopoly (just seventeen years at that time),
-by the time enough federal marshals appeared, the patents had expired. A new
-industry had been born, in part from the piracy of Edison's creative
-property.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.2.
Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
+California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
+lover spredte seg til slutt vestover. Men fordi patenter tildeler
+patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">begrenset</span>”</span> monopol (kun sytten
+år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
+opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
+kreative rettigheter.
+</p></div><div class="section" title="4.2.
Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
musikk.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
574735"></a><p>
-At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for
-reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the
-law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and
-the exclusive right to control public performances of their music. In other
-words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's 1899 hit <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy
-Mose,</span>”</span> the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy
-of the musical score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform
-it publicly.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
574756"></a><p>
-But what if I wanted to record <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>”</span> using Edison's
-phonograph or Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear
-enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I
-performed in making this recording. And it was clear enough that I would
-have to pay for any public performance of the work I was recording. But it
-wasn't totally clear that I would have to pay for a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public
-performance</span>”</span> if I recorded the song in my own house (even today, you
-don't owe the Beatles anything if you sing their songs in the shower), or if
-I recorded the song from memory (copies in your brain are
-not—yet— regulated by copyright law). So if I simply sang the
-song into a recording device in the privacy of my own home, it wasn't clear
-that I owed the composer anything. And more importantly, it wasn't clear
-whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of those
-recordings. Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively
-pirate someone else's song without paying its composer anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
574778"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
879744"></a><p>
+På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
+reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
+gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
+deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
+deres musikk. Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
+Russels populære låt <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>”</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
+for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
+å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
879773"></a><p>
+Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>”</span> ved hjelp av
+Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano? Her snublet loven. Det
+var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
+gjorde innspillingen. Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
+offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn. Men det var ikke helt klart
+at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>”</span> hvis jeg
+spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
+Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
+inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
+ikke—ennå—regulert av opphavsrettsloven). Så hvis jeg ganske
+enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
+ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe. Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
+klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
+innspillingene. På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
+røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
879802"></a><p>
Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
å røve. Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
-det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2574805"></a>
+det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2879837"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten. En komponist skriver en sang eller
en opera. En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
registrerer opphavsretten til den. Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
-om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2574832" href="#ftn.id2574832" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
+om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2879864" href="#ftn.id2879864" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of
-American composers,</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2574866" href="#ftn.id2574866" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the
+American composers,</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2879898" href="#ftn.id2879898" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>”</span> was thereby <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">at the complete
-mercy of this one pirate.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2574880" href="#ftn.id2574880" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As
+mercy of this one pirate.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2879913" href="#ftn.id2879913" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As
John Philip Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">When they
-make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2574893" href="#ftn.id2574893" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
+make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2879926" href="#ftn.id2879926" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
before their introduction.</span>”</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
-of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id2574914" href="#ftn.id2574914" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
+of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id2879948" href="#ftn.id2879948" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to consider first the
interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
are.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>”</span> the general counsel of
the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
-defined by statute.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2574938" href="#ftn.id2574938" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2574948"></a>
+defined by statute.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2879972" href="#ftn.id2879972" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2879981"></a>
</p><p>
The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
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="id2575004"></a>
+work except with permission of Grisham. <a class="indexterm" name="id2880036"></a>
</p><p>
But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
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="id2574561" href="#ftn.id2574561" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575045"></a>
+follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id2879562" href="#ftn.id2879562" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880077"></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="id2575077" href="#ftn.id2575077" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
+choice.<sup>[<a name="id2880109" href="#ftn.id2880109" 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.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.3.
Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="4.3.
Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public performance</span>”</span> of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2575116" href="#ftn.id2575116" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As I described above, the law gives the composer
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public performance</span>”</span> of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2880149" href="#ftn.id2880149" 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>
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="id2575192"></a>
+work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work. <a class="indexterm" name="id2880225"></a>
</p><p>
rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken. Så hvis
Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
</p><p>
-Imagine she does sing your song, and imagine she likes it a lot. She then
-decides to make a recording of your song, and it becomes a top hit. Under
-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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">protected</span>”</span>
-right. The radio station thus gets to <span class="emphasis"><em>pirate</em></span> the value
-of Madonna's work without paying her anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575258"></a><p>
+Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
+godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
+populær hitlåt. Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
+spiller din sang. Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
+effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er. Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
+innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>”</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
+får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
+betale henne noen ting.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880294"></a><p>
No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
nothing.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.4.
Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="4.4.
Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
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="id2
575294"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575310"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575316"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
880329"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880346"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880352"></a><p>
Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft. Rosel
Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">unfair
-and potentially destructive competition.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2575330" href="#ftn.id2575330" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public interest</span>”</span> in spreading
+and potentially destructive competition.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2880366" href="#ftn.id2880366" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public interest</span>”</span> in spreading
the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
testimony, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
-property?</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2575357" href="#ftn.id2575357" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
+property?</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2880392" href="#ftn.id2880392" 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="id2575374" href="#ftn.id2575374" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
+for.<sup>[<a name="id2880410" href="#ftn.id2880410" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
betaler for den. Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
på et svakere ord for å beskrive det. Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
-ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2575402" href="#ftn.id2575402" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
575413"></a><p>
-These were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free-ride[rs],</span>”</span> Screen Actor's Guild president
-Charlton Heston said, who were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">depriving actors of
-compensation.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2575429" href="#ftn.id2575429" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
+ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2880438" href="#ftn.id2880438" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
880449"></a><p>
+Disse var <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>”</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
+Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
+skuespillerne</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2880465" href="#ftn.id2880465" 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="id2574462" href="#ftn.id2574462" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575481"></a>
+compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2879443" href="#ftn.id2879443" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880517"></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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> means
using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
-that creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2575470" href="#ftn.id2575470" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> — then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
+that creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2880506" href="#ftn.id2880506" 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 class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574530" href="#id2574530" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879522" href="#id2879522" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
-I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary
-history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 87–93, which details Edison's
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">adventures</span>”</span> with copyright and patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2574544"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574600" href="#id2574600" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
+Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
+ekstraordinære historien. Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
+and Copywrongs</em>, 87–93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">eventyr</span>”</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2879538"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879603" href="#id2879603" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
Propertization of Copyright</span>”</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
-No. 159. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574666" href="#id2574666" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
+No. 159. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879669" href="#id2879669" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
-Majority</em>, ar
chived at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574832" href="#id2574832" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
+Majority</em>, ar
kivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879864" href="#id2879864" 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 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
-Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="id2574845"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574866" href="#id2574866" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
+Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="id2879878"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879898" href="#id2879898" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574880" href="#id2574880" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879913" href="#id2879913" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574893" href="#id2574893" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879926" href="#id2879926" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
John Philip Sousa, komponist).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574914" href="#id2574914" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879948" href="#id2879948" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84
(uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
Company of New York).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574938" href="#id2574938" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879972" href="#id2879972" 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 id="ftn.id2574561" href="#id2574561" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879562" href="#id2879562" class="para">60</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 id="ftn.id2575077" href="#id2575077" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880109" href="#id2880109" 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 id="ftn.id2575116" href="#id2575116" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
+1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880149" href="#id2880149" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
Copyright,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
-70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="id2575148"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575157"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575330" href="#id2575330" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
+70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="id2880181"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880189"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880366" href="#id2880366" 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). <a class="indexterm" name="id2575301"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575357" href="#id2575357" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
+H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission). <a class="indexterm" name="id2880336"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880392" href="#id2880392" 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 id="ftn.id2575374" href="#id2575374" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880410" href="#id2880410" 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 id="ftn.id2575402" href="#id2575402" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880438" href="#id2880438" 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 id="ftn.id2575429" href="#id2575429" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880465" href="#id2880465" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
-president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id2575407"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574462" href="#id2574462" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
+president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id2880443"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879443" href="#id2879443" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id2575432"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575470" href="#id2575470" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
+fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id2880468"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880506" href="#id2880506" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The threat of
piracy—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
compensation—has grown with the Internet.</span>”</span>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
5. CHAPTER FIVE: “Piracy”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>5. CHAPTER FIVE: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piracy</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
-</p><div class="section" title="5.1.
Piracy I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="5.1.
Piratvirksomhet I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><p>
All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
copy it, and sell it—all without the permission of a copyright
owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
-every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2575461" href="#ftn.id2575461" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
+every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2880497" href="#ftn.id2880497" 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="id2575698" href="#ftn.id2575698" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
+intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2880741" href="#ftn.id2880741" 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="id2575762" href="#ftn.id2575762" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
+otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2880791" href="#ftn.id2880791" 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
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="id2575867"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2575873"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575880"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575891"></a>
+piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. <a class="indexterm" name="id2880897"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2880903"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880909"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880921"></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,
fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
to say who gets access to what—at least ordinarily. And if the law
properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
-access, then violating the law is still wrong. <a class="indexterm" name="id2575617"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575916"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2575936"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575943"></a>
+access, then violating the law is still wrong. <a class="indexterm" name="id2880661"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880946"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2880966"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880972"></a>
</p><p>
</p><p>
These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="5.2.
Piracy II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piracy II</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="5.2.
Piratvirksomhet II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piratvirksomhet II</h2></div></div></div><p>
The key to the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
-that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2576027" href="#ftn.id2576027" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
+that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2881065" href="#ftn.id2881065" 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.
</p><p>
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="id2576051" href="#ftn.id2576051" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
+Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2881090" href="#ftn.id2881090" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
crew had simply put together components that had been developed
-independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2576081"></a>
+independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2881120"></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="id2576094" href="#ftn.id2576094" 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="id2881133" href="#ftn.id2881133" 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="id2576143" href="#ftn.id2576143" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
+Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2881182" href="#ftn.id2881182" 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="id2576172" href="#ftn.id2576172" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
+May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2881210" href="#ftn.id2881210" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
being <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">taken</span>”</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
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="id2576231"></a>
+of purchasing. <a class="indexterm" name="id2881270"></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="id2576302" href="#ftn.id2576302" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
+economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2881340" href="#ftn.id2881340" 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,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
-fought it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2576356" href="#ftn.id2576356" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
+fought it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2881393" href="#ftn.id2881393" 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
turnaround. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the end,</span>”</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the
`crisis' … was not the fault of the tapers—who did not [stop
after MTV came into being]—but had to a large extent resulted from
-stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2575773" href="#ftn.id2575773" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
+stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2880803" href="#ftn.id2880803" 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
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="id2576461" href="#ftn.id2576461" 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="id2881498" href="#ftn.id2881498" 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. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
-price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2576519" href="#ftn.id2576519" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
+price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2881548" href="#ftn.id2881548" 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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
<em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
-get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2576556" href="#ftn.id2576556" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
+get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2881585" href="#ftn.id2881585" 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="id2576605" href="#ftn.id2576605" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
+are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2881635" href="#ftn.id2881635" 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
</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="id2576646" href="#ftn.id2576646" 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="id2881676" href="#ftn.id2881676" 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, <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="id2
576696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
881725"></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
</p><p>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
of the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy</span>”</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
-good. And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="4. CHAPTER FOUR: “Pirates”">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
+good. And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">down to
-zero.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2576825" href="#ftn.id2576825" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
+zero.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2881860" href="#ftn.id2881860" 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
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="id2
576926"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
881961"></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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>”</span> He warned, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">When there are 20,
30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
`tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
-asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2576986" href="#ftn.id2576986" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
+asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2882021" href="#ftn.id2882021" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>”</span> he told Congress,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
-basic economics and plain common sense.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2577008" href="#ftn.id2577008" 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="id2577017" href="#ftn.id2577017" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
+basic economics and plain common sense.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2882043" href="#ftn.id2882043" 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="id2882052" href="#ftn.id2882052" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
— a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair.</span>”</span> By
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
copyrightowners,</span>”</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">take from
the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
-from its reproduction.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2577046" href="#ftn.id2577046" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
+from its reproduction.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2882081" href="#ftn.id2882081" 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
technology—which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
of the American film industry</span>”</span> (worse yet, it was a
<span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
-industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2577068" href="#ftn.id2577068" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2577092"></a>
+industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2882103" href="#ftn.id2882103" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2882127"></a>
</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="id2577118" href="#ftn.id2577118" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
+technology.<sup>[<a name="id2882153" href="#ftn.id2882153" 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
pattern is clear:
</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char">Tilfelle</th><th align="char">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>”</span></th><th align="char">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="char">Responsen til Kongressen</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><p>
In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
-content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2577250" href="#ftn.id2577250" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
+content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2882285" href="#ftn.id2882285" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free
ride</span>”</span> on someone else's work.
</p><p>
We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
-possible uses of his work.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2577344" href="#ftn.id2577344" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
+possible uses of his work.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2882379" href="#ftn.id2882379" 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
develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>”</span> as John Schwartz writes in
<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
-P2P fight.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2577408" href="#ftn.id2577408" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
+P2P fight.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2882439" href="#ftn.id2882439" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
begins to talk about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">balance,</span>”</span> the copyright warriors raise a
different argument. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
incentives,</span>”</span> they say, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>,</span>”</span> the warriors
insist. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">And it should be protected just as any other property is
protected.</span>”</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575461" href="#id2575461" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880497" href="#id2880497" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
Risk,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575698" href="#id2575698" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880741" href="#id2880741" 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
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="id2574921"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575742"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575762" href="#id2575762" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
+framework. <a class="indexterm" name="id2879954"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880772"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880791" href="#id2880791" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
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.</span>”</span> Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2575779"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576027" href="#id2576027" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
+pirating were not an option.</span>”</span> Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2880809"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881065" href="#id2881065" 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 id="ftn.id2576051" href="#id2576051" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881090" href="#id2881090" 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
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="id2575771"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576094" href="#id2576094" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
+89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2880801"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881133" href="#id2881133" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
Call,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
Naughton, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>”</span> (London)
<em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576143" href="#id2576143" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881182" href="#id2881182" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
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 id="ftn.id2576172" href="#id2576172" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881210" href="#id2881210" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576302" href="#id2576302" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881340" href="#id2881340" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
-148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2576070"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576356" href="#id2576356" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2881108"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881393" href="#id2881393" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
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 id="ftn.id2575773" href="#id2575773" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
+Office, October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880803" href="#id2880803" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576461" href="#id2576461" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881498" href="#id2881498" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
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).</span>”</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576519" href="#id2576519" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881548" href="#id2881548" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
Jane Black, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>”</span> BusinessWeek online,
-13 February 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2576535"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576556" href="#id2576556" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
+13 February 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2881565"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881585" href="#id2881585" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576605" href="#id2576605" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881635" href="#id2881635" 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 id="ftn.id2576646" href="#id2576646" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881676" href="#id2881676" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
#19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
Results,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576825" href="#id2576825" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881860" href="#id2881860" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
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 id="ftn.id2576986" href="#id2576986" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882021" href="#id2882021" 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 id="ftn.id2577008" href="#id2577008" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882043" href="#id2882043" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577017" href="#id2577017" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882052" href="#id2882052" class="para">89</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 id="ftn.id2577046" href="#id2577046" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882081" href="#id2882081" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
Valenti).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577068" href="#id2577068" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882103" href="#id2882103" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577118" href="#id2577118" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882153" href="#id2882153" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577250" href="#id2577250" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882285" href="#id2882285" 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
eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">From
Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
-Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2576846"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577344" href="#id2577344" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
+Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2881882"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882379" href="#id2882379" class="para">94</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 id="ftn.id2577408" href="#id2577408" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882439" href="#id2882439" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
Echoes Past Efforts,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22
September 2003, C3.
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Part II. “PROPERTY”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Part II. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">PROPERTY</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="“PROPERTY”"><div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Del II. “Eiendom”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Del II. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="“Eiendom”"><div></div><p>
woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">He who receives an idea from me,
receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
-taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2577520" href="#ftn.id2577520" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
+taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2882550" href="#ftn.id2882550" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
But how, and to what extent, and in what form—the details, in other
words—matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
intangible into property emerged, we need to place this
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> in its proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2577571" href="#ftn.id2577571" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> in its proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2882601" href="#ftn.id2882601" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright material
property</span>”</span>— will be a bit more clear, and its implications will
be revealed as quite different from the implications that the copyright
warriors would have us draw.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577520" href="#id2577520" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882550" href="#id2882550" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
<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 id="ftn.id2577571" href="#id2577571" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882601" href="#id2882601" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2577624"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2882654"></a><p>
William Shakespeare wrote <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> in
1595. The play was first published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play
that Shakespeare had written. He would continue to write plays through 1613,
In 1774, almost 180 years after <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> was
written, the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy-right</span>”</span> for the work was still thought by
many to be the exclusive right of a single London publisher, Jacob
-Tonson.<sup>[<a name="id2577662" href="#ftn.id2577662" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson was the most prominent
-of a small group of publishers called the Conger<sup>[<a name="id2577690" href="#ftn.id2577690" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup> who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth
+Tonson.<sup>[<a name="id2882693" href="#ftn.id2882693" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson was the most prominent
+of a small group of publishers called the Conger<sup>[<a name="id2882720" href="#ftn.id2882720" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup> who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth
century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy</span>”</span> of books that they had acquired from authors. That
perpetual right meant that no one else could publish copies of a book to
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright</span>”</span> act. Known as the Statute of Anne, the act stated
that all published works would get a copyright term of fourteen years,
renewable once if the author was alive, and that all works already published
-by 1710 would get a single term of twenty-one additional years.<sup>[<a name="id2577726" href="#ftn.id2577726" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
+by 1710 would get a single term of twenty-one additional years.<sup>[<a name="id2882756" href="#ftn.id2882756" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
Juliet</em> should have been free in 1731. So why was there any issue
about it still being under Tonson's control in 1774?
</p><p>
a way to make it easier for the Crown to control what was published. But
after it expired, there was no positive law that said that the publishers,
or <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Stationers,</span>”</span> had an exclusive right to print books.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2577770"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2882801"></a>
</p><p>
There was no <span class="emphasis"><em>positive</em></span> law, but that didn't mean that
there was no law. The Anglo-American legal tradition looks to both the words
or whether Kenneth Branagh would be allowed to make his films. The
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copy-right</span>”</span> was only an exclusive right to print—no
less, of course, but also no more.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
577922"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
882959"></a><p>
Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British. They had
had a long and ugly experience with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive rights,</span>”</span>
especially <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">exclusive rights</span>”</span> granted by the Crown. The English
monopoly profit. The attacks against these monopolists were harsh: Milton
described them as <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of
book-selling</span>”</span>; they were <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">men who do not therefore labour in an
-honest profession to which learning is indetted.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2577990" href="#ftn.id2577990" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
+honest profession to which learning is indetted.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2883026" href="#ftn.id2883026" 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="id2578066" href="#ftn.id2578066" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2883103" href="#ftn.id2883103" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Having failed in Parliament, the publishers turned to the courts in a series
of cases. Their argument was simple and direct: The Statute of Anne gave
leading jurists of the day. It also displayed extraordinary chutzpah. Until
then, as law professor Raymond Patterson has put it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The publishers
… had as much concern for authors as a cattle rancher has for
-cattle.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2576401" href="#ftn.id2576401" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> The bookseller didn't
+cattle.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2881439" href="#ftn.id2881439" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> The bookseller didn't
care squat for the rights of the author. His concern was the monopoly
profit that the author's work gave.
</p><p>
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
-kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2578151" href="#ftn.id2578151" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2883188" href="#ftn.id2883188" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Donaldson was an outsider to the London Conger. He began his career in
Edinburgh in 1750. The focus of his business was inexpensive reprints
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">of standard works whose copyright term had expired,</span>”</span> at least
-under the Statute of Anne.<sup>[<a name="id2578173" href="#ftn.id2578173" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldson's
+under the Statute of Anne.<sup>[<a name="id2883210" href="#ftn.id2883210" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldson's
publishing house prospered and became <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">something of a center for
literary Scotsmen.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">[A]mong them,</span>”</span> Professor Mark Rose
writes, was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the young James Boswell who, together with his friend
Andrew Erskine, published an anthology of contemporary Scottish poems with
-Donaldson.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2578203" href="#ftn.id2578203" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578212"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578218"></a>
+Donaldson.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2883240" href="#ftn.id2883240" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883248"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883255"></a>
</p><p>
When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in Scotland,
he responded by moving his shop to London, where he sold inexpensive
editions <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">of the most popular English books, in defiance of the
-supposed common law right of Literary Property.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2578234" href="#ftn.id2578234" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> His books undercut the Conger prices by 30 to 50
+supposed common law right of Literary Property.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2883271" href="#ftn.id2883271" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> His books undercut the Conger prices by 30 to 50
percent, and he rested his right to compete upon the ground that, under the
Statute of Anne, the works he was selling had passed out of protection.
</p><p>
requirements of the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full
protection of the statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor
began printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
-law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<sup>[<a name="id2578280" href="#ftn.id2578280" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
+law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<sup>[<a name="id2883322" href="#ftn.id2883322" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever protection
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="id2
578352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
883393"></a><p>
Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
578367"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
883408"></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="id2578380" href="#ftn.id2578380" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2883422" href="#ftn.id2883422" 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
public domain was born. For the first time in Anglo-American history, the
legal control over creative works expired, and the greatest works in English
history—including those of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson, and
-Bunyan—were free of legal restraint. <a class="indexterm" name="id2578470"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578480"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578485"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578491"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2578498"></a>
+Bunyan—were free of legal restraint. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883512"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883521"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883527"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883533"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2883539"></a>
</p><p>
It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords fueled
an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland, where most
engrossed the attention of the public, and none has been tried before the
House of Lords in the decision of which so many individuals were
interested.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Great rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over
-literary property: bonfires and illuminations.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2578528" href="#ftn.id2578528" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
+literary property: bonfires and illuminations.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2883569" href="#ftn.id2883569" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
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="id2578120" href="#ftn.id2578120" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2883156" href="#ftn.id2883156" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><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
påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577662" href="#id2577662" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882693" href="#id2882693" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent
collected works of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, and John
Dryden. See Keith Walker, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424–31.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577690" href="#id2577690" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882720" href="#id2882720" class="para">99</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 id="ftn.id2577726" href="#id2577726" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882756" href="#id2882756" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
As Siva Vaidhyanathan nicely argues, it is erroneous to call this a
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyright law.</span>”</span> See Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2577737"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577990" href="#id2577990" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
+Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2882767"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883026" href="#id2883026" class="para">101</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 id="ftn.id2578066" href="#id2578066" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883103" href="#id2883103" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576401" href="#id2576401" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881439" href="#id2881439" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For a
wonderfully compelling account, see Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2577700"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578151" href="#id2578151" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2882731"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883188" href="#id2883188" class="para">104</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 id="ftn.id2578173" href="#id2578173" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883210" href="#id2883210" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
-University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id2578181"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578203" href="#id2578203" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
+University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883218"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883240" href="#id2883240" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578234" href="#id2578234" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883271" href="#id2883271" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578280" href="#id2578280" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883322" href="#id2883322" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578380" href="#id2578380" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883422" href="#id2883422" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578528" href="#id2578528" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883569" href="#id2883569" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578120" href="#id2578120" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883156" href="#id2883156" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
*stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
-scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2578666"></a>
+scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2883707"></a>
</p><p>
Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
-programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2578723"></a>
+programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2883765"></a>
</p><p>
Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
-sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2578744"></a>
+sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2883785"></a>
</p><p>
Then, as Else told me, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">two things happened. First we discovered
… that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at least
denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
-Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2578827"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578833"></a>
+Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883869"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883875"></a>
</p><p>
Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
$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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2578894" href="#ftn.id2578894" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Else's use
+is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2883935" href="#ftn.id2883935" 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
syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
_all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578894" href="#id2578894" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883935" href="#id2883935" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
For an excellent argument that such use is <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair use,</span>”</span> but that
Richard A. Posner with William F. Patry, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory
Reform in the Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em></span>”</span> (draft on file
with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2579088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2579095"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2884130"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884136"></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="id2
579110"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884151"></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="id2
579118"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884160"></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="id2
579152"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884194"></a><p>
Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Our
goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
films,</span>”</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No
one had ever really done this before,</span>”</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">No one
had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
career.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
579177"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884219"></a><p>
Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
579192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884233"></a><p>
Alben replied, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
we want to use in these film clips.</span>”</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Great! Go for
-it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2579208" href="#ftn.id2579208" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
+it.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2884250" href="#ftn.id2884250" 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
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="id2
579275"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884317"></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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
</p><p>
It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later—<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">and even then we
weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
579322"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884363"></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="id2
579362"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2579369"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884404"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884410"></a><p>
But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">There is
nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
-all.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2579384" href="#ftn.id2579384" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
+all.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2884426" href="#ftn.id2884426" 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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">very few … have the time and
cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
money,</span>”</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
together.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
579486"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884514"></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
tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
<em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
579542"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884576"></a><p>
When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David Nimmer,
perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the nation. He had
an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the room of over 250
well-entertained judges. Taking an ominous tone, he began his talk with a
question: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Do you know how many federal laws were just violated in
this room?</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
579561"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884595"></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="id2579607"></a>
+and music. <a class="indexterm" name="id2884641"></a>
</p><p>
All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
to be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">legal,</span>”</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
lawyers—again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579208" href="#id2579208" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884250" href="#id2884250" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>”</span>
-creativity, as this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2579220"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579384" href="#id2579384" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
+creativity, as this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2884262"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884426" href="#id2884426" class="para">114</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></div><div class="chapter" title="
9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">bots</span>”</span>—computer codes designed
to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">spider,</span>”</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
content—began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
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="id2579811" href="#ftn.id2579811" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
+forget.<sup>[<a name="id2884845" href="#ftn.id2884845" 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
unavailable,</span>”</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
student?</span>”</span> As Kahle put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
579932"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884966"></a><p>
Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>”</span> Thus, when
the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
copy exists—if it exists at all—in the library archive of the
-film company.<sup>[<a name="id2579986" href="#ftn.id2579986" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
+film company.<sup>[<a name="id2885014" href="#ftn.id2885014" 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
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>”</span> 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="id2580022"></a>
+download the film in a few minutes—for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2885050"></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="id2580137" href="#ftn.id2580137" 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="id2885165" href="#ftn.id2885165" 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
collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property.</span>”</span>
And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
exercise.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579811" href="#id2579811" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884845" href="#id2884845" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
stated, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>”</span> That was later
changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have
Ended.</span>”</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579986" href="#id2579986" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885014" href="#id2885014" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
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 id="ftn.id2580137" href="#id2580137" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885165" href="#id2885165" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
Dave Barns, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
Digital Networks,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>10. CHAPTER TEN: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Property</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
administration—literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
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="id2580252"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580312"></a>
+Washington. <a class="indexterm" name="id2885280"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885340"></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="id2580331"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580338"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2580344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580350"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580356"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580363"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580369"></a>
+Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. <a class="indexterm" name="id2885359"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885366"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2885372"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885378"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885384"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885391"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885397"></a>
</p><p>
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="id2580428" href="#ftn.id2580428" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
+debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2885456" href="#ftn.id2885456" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
</p><p>
While <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property</span>”</span> is certainly <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span>
in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
-understand,<sup>[<a name="id2580496" href="#ftn.id2580496" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
+understand,<sup>[<a name="id2885524" href="#ftn.id2885524" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
nor should it be, that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>”</span> have been
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
property owners.</span>”</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.1. 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
that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
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="id2580384"></a>
+by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id2885412"></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="id2580887" href="#ftn.id2580887" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
+in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2885904" href="#ftn.id2885904" 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="id2
580920"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. 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="id2
885927"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. 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="id2580954" href="#ftn.id2580954" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
-</p><div class="section" title="10.1.
Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><p>
+modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2885971" href="#ftn.id2885971" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
+</p><div class="section" title="10.1.
Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></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
courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
sense.
</p><p>
Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
results.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">White Paper</span>”</span> prepared by the Commerce
Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
581161"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
886192"></a><p>
But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
government should intervene to support that old way of doing
business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
-cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2581176" href="#ftn.id2581176" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
+cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2886207" href="#ftn.id2886207" 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 <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
patents, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
-competitors.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2581238" href="#ftn.id2581238" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
+competitors.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2886269" href="#ftn.id2886269" 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="id2581257"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2886288"></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="id2581344"></a>
+increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id2886384"></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="id2
581362"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
886401"></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="id2581378"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2581384"></a>
+reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2886417"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886423"></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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>”</span> for
-culture.<sup>[<a name="id2581416" href="#ftn.id2581416" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
+culture.<sup>[<a name="id2886455" href="#ftn.id2886455" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">for free.</span>”</span> The point is that
</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="id2
581466"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.2. Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Opphav</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
886506"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.2. Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Opphav</h2></div></div></div><p>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">creative
property</span>”</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
purpose of rewarding authors.
</p><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
-chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
+chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.6. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright</span>”</span> today.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Copyright today."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.6. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Opphavsrett</span>”</span> i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Opphavsrett i dag."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
La meg forklare hvordan.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.3.
Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.3.
Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
-rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2581647" href="#ftn.id2581647" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
+rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2886686" href="#ftn.id2886686" 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="id2581715" href="#ftn.id2581715" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
+14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2886754" href="#ftn.id2886754" 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="id2581782" href="#ftn.id2581782" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
+work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2886822" href="#ftn.id2886822" 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="id2581817" href="#ftn.id2581817" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
+print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2886857" href="#ftn.id2886857" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is 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="id2581919" href="#ftn.id2581919" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.4.
Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Virkeområde</h2></div></div></div><p>
+the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2886959" href="#ftn.id2886959" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.4.
Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Virkeområde</h2></div></div></div><p>
The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">scope</span>”</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
the law. The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
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="id2582073" href="#ftn.id2582073" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
+United States.<sup>[<a name="id2887111" href="#ftn.id2887111" 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>
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="id2582160" href="#ftn.id2582160" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
+protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2887198" href="#ftn.id2887198" 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="id2582208" href="#ftn.id2582208" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
+book.<sup>[<a name="id2887247" href="#ftn.id2887247" 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
derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
originally granted.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.5.
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.5.
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
-and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2582274" href="#ftn.id2582274" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
+and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2887313" href="#ftn.id2887313" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
</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="id2582352" href="#ftn.id2582352" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
+copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2887391" href="#ftn.id2887391" 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.
</p><p>
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
circle.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
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
e 10.8. 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>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.8. 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
therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
</p><p>
Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses that
remain unregulated because the law considers these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>”</span>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
copyrighted work.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1541.png" alt="Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated. You
the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
over such <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair uses</span>”</span> for public policy (and possibly First
Amendment) reasons.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.10. Unregulated copying considered <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>”</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Unregulated copying considered fair uses."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Unregulated copying considered <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>”</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Unregulated copying considered fair uses."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
regulated.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1551.png" alt="Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
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="id2582283" href="#ftn.id2582283" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
+copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2887322" href="#ftn.id2887322" 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
balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.6.
Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.6.
Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
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="id2
582844"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
887878"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></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
<em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. 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="id2582891" href="#ftn.id2582891" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
+juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2887926" href="#ftn.id2887926" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned Warner Brothers
that the Marx Brothers <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">were brothers long before you
-were.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2582914" href="#ftn.id2582914" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> The Marx Brothers
+were.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2887949" href="#ftn.id2887949" 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
is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
582978"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2582987"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
888004"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888012"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form. En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
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
e 10.12. 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>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.12. 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.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
computer.
</p><p>
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
-Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id2583111"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2583117"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.14. E-book of Aristotle;s <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Politics</span>”</span></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>
+Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id2888137"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2888143"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.14. E-book of Aristotle;s <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Politics</span>”</span></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
e 10.15. List of the permissions for Aristotle;s <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Politics</span>”</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt="List of the permissions for Aristotle;s Politics."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.15. List of the permissions for Aristotle;s <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Politics</span>”</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt="List of the permissions for Aristotle;s 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, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.16. List of the permissions for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>”</span>.</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>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.16. List of the permissions for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>”</span>.</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!
</p><p>
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="id2583205" href="#ftn.id2583205" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
+power.<sup>[<a name="id2888231" href="#ftn.id2888231" 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
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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>”</span> erased <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Brothers</span>”</span> from
-the sentence. <a class="indexterm" name="id2583278"></a>
+the sentence. <a class="indexterm" name="id2888304"></a>
</p><p>
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
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:
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2583328"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.17. List of the permissions for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Alice's Adventures in Wonderland</span>”</span>.</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>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2888354"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.17. List of the permissions for <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Alice's Adventures in Wonderland</span>”</span>.</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>
Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">permissions</span>”</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">read
incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control. That incentive
is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
583404"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
888430"></a><p>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
of mine that makes the same point.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
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="id2
583542"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583551"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583559"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
888568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888585"></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
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="id2583604" href="#ftn.id2583604" 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="id2888630" href="#ftn.id2888630" 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.
Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
583788"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583796"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583804"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
888814"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888822"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888830"></a><p>
And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
RIAA lawyer that read:
designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
583892"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583898"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583905"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
888911"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888917"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888923"></a><p>
Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
distributing a circumvention technology. Thus, even though he was not
himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
others to infringe others' copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
583942"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
888961"></a><p>
The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>”</span> for example, had testified
in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
-Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="id2583964"></a>
+Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="id2888983"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>”</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>”</span> Maybe
I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
-important.<sup>[<a name="id2584004" href="#ftn.id2584004" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
+important.<sup>[<a name="id2889022" href="#ftn.id2889022" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
responsible.
</p><p>
This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2584045"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2889063"></a>
</p><p>
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
</p><p>
such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.18. 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>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.18. 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: <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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2584103"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
584110"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584117"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584123"></a><p>
+guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do. <a class="indexterm" name="id2889122"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
889129"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889135"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889142"></a><p>
The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
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="id2584187" href="#ftn.id2584187" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
+continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2889206" href="#ftn.id2889206" 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
traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
is, in effect, what is happening here.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.7.
Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.7.
Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
So copyright's duration has increased dramatically—tripled in the past
thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well—from
Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
-sources.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2584301" href="#ftn.id2584301" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
+sources.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2889320" href="#ftn.id2889320" 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="id2584313" href="#ftn.id2584313" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
+Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2889332" href="#ftn.id2889332" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
-nationwide.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2584331" href="#ftn.id2584331" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584350"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2584356"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584363"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584369"></a>
+nationwide.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2889350" href="#ftn.id2889350" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889362"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889369"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2889375"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889381"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889387"></a>
</p><p>
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
</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="id2584401"></a>
+article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2889419"></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="id2584425" href="#ftn.id2584425" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
+system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2889444" href="#ftn.id2889444" 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
outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
thousand words could do:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe? Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
</p><p>
Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
er viktig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
584508"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584514"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
889526"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889532"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889539"></a><p>
I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
Family</em>. Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten. Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
andre. Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
-nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2584553" href="#ftn.id2584553" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
+nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2889571" href="#ftn.id2889571" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
quintupled to 77 percent.</span>”</span> <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
-one.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2584615" href="#ftn.id2584615" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
+one.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2889634" href="#ftn.id2889634" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">In the
ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
-studios decreased 63%.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2584643" href="#ftn.id2584643" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
584650"></a><p>
+studios decreased 63%.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2889661" href="#ftn.id2889661" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
889669"></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
</p><p>
Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
snevret inn fra få til stadig færre. Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2584674"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584680"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2889693"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889699"></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="id2584706" href="#ftn.id2584706" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
+you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2889717" href="#ftn.id2889717" 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="id2
584733"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
889744"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>”</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
their core business. The same analysis could help explain why large,
traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
-trends.<sup>[<a name="id2584764" href="#ftn.id2584764" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
+trends.<sup>[<a name="id2889775" href="#ftn.id2889775" 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="id2584795"></a>
+there will be far too little sprinting. <a class="indexterm" name="id2889807"></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="id2584920" href="#ftn.id2584920" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
+defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2889924" href="#ftn.id2889924" 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
and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.8.
Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.8.
Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
warriors that the government should <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>”</span> In
the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
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="id2585149" href="#ftn.id2585149" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
+known.<sup>[<a name="id2890153" href="#ftn.id2890153" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
</p><p>
also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
-chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
-<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
+chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
+<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
transformation. More commercial transformative work would be created if
derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property,</span>”</span> and of course, as with any
property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
-rights<sup>[<a name="id2585505" href="#ftn.id2585505" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>) has been crafted to balance
+rights<sup>[<a name="id2890508" href="#ftn.id2890508" 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
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 class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580428" href="#id2580428" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885456" href="#id2885456" 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 id="ftn.id2580496" href="#id2580496" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885524" href="#id2885524" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property</span>”</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>”</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580887" href="#id2580887" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885904" href="#id2885904" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95;
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580954" href="#id2580954" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885971" href="#id2885971" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">liberty.</span>”</span> They
object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
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="id2581008"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2581017"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581176" href="#id2581176" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
+the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. <a class="indexterm" name="id2886025"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886034"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886207" href="#id2886207" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>”</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#24</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581238" href="#id2581238" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886269" href="#id2886269" class="para">123</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 id="ftn.id2581416" href="#id2581416" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886455" href="#id2886455" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
See, for example, James Boyle, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
Environmentalism for the Net?</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581647" href="#id2581647" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886686" href="#id2886686" class="para">125</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: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">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></span>”</span>
-(emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2581665"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581715" href="#id2581715" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
+(emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2886705"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886754" href="#id2886754" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
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 id="ftn.id2581782" href="#id2581782" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
+years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886822" href="#id2886822" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
-498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581817" href="#id2581817" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
+498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886857" href="#id2886857" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581919" href="#id2581919" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886959" href="#id2886959" 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,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>”</span> loc. cit.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582073" href="#id2582073" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887111" href="#id2887111" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
1987).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582160" href="#id2582160" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887198" href="#id2887198" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Legal
-Affairs</em>, July/August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2582189"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582208" href="#id2582208" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
+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="id2887228"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887247" href="#id2887247" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies</span>”</span> and derivative
works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
Constitutionality,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
-(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id2582226"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582274" href="#id2582274" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
+(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id2887265"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887313" href="#id2887313" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copies;</span>”</span>
17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
is a copy, there is a right.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582352" href="#id2582352" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887391" href="#id2887391" 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 id="ftn.id2582283" href="#id2582283" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887322" href="#id2887322" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
I don't mean <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">nature</span>”</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
number of copies remain.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582891" href="#id2582891" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887926" href="#id2887926" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
See David Lange, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981):
172–73.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582914" href="#id2582914" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887949" href="#id2887949" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2582906"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583205" href="#id2583205" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
+Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2887940"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888231" href="#id2888231" 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 id="ftn.id2583604" href="#id2583604" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888630" href="#id2888630" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
Science,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>”</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
<em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
-Legal Case,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2583660"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584004" href="#id2584004" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
+Legal Case,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2888685"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889022" href="#id2889022" 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2582922"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584187" href="#id2584187" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
+(New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71. <a class="indexterm" name="id2887956"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889206" href="#id2889206" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Legal
Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
(1997): 651.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584301" href="#id2584301" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889320" href="#id2889320" 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 id="ftn.id2584313" href="#id2584313" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
+of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889332" href="#id2889332" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
Slide,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584331" href="#id2584331" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889350" href="#id2889350" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584425" href="#id2584425" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889444" href="#id2889444" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
James Fallows, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
-Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2584444"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584553" href="#id2584553" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
+Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2889462"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889571" href="#id2889571" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>”</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
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 id="ftn.id2584615" href="#id2584615" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889634" href="#id2889634" 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 id="ftn.id2584643" href="#id2584643" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889661" href="#id2889661" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584706" href="#id2584706" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889717" href="#id2889717" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with
Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584764" href="#id2584764" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889775" href="#id2889775" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
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 id="ftn.id2584920" href="#id2584920" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
+2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889924" href="#id2889924" 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
authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
Ad,</span>”</span> 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584984"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584992"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2584998"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585004"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585011"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585017"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585149" href="#id2585149" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
+the criticism was <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889987"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889996"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2890002"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890008"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890015"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890021"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890153" href="#id2890153" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">four
surrenders</span>”</span> of copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan,
-159–60. <a class="indexterm" name="id2584955"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585505" href="#id2585505" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
+159–60. <a class="indexterm" name="id2889959"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890508" href="#id2890508" 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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
Property,</span>”</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
-1980). <a class="indexterm" name="id2585520"></a>
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Part III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Part III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>11. 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>
+1980). <a class="indexterm" name="id2890524"></a>
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Del III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Del III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel 11. 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="id2585670" href="#ftn.id2585670" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
+the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2890663" href="#ftn.id2890663" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
excellent fruit.</span>”</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
mysteries. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
not the person whose blood was at the scene. …</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
585826"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2585833"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
890818"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890826"></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
it,</span>”</span> 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="id2585916"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2890909"></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="id2585966" href="#ftn.id2585966" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
+been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2890950" href="#ftn.id2890950" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
586064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891048"></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
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="id2586152" href="#ftn.id2586152" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
+everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2891136" href="#ftn.id2891136" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>”</span> Its position on these matters has now
-changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2586178"></a>
+changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2891162"></a>
</p><p>
Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585670" href="#id2585670" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890663" href="#id2890663" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>”</span> (1904, 1911). See
H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585966" href="#id2585966" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890950" href="#id2890950" 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,
RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,</span>”</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2586047"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2586056"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586152" href="#id2586152" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
+<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="id2891031"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2891040"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891136" href="#id2891136" 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></div><div class="chapter" title="
12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
+in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
To fight <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">piracy,</span>”</span> to protect <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">property,</span>”</span> the
content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
the property called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> is at its greatest
in our history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
586239"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586246"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891230"></a><p>
Yet <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">common sense</span>”</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
today's monopolists of culture.
-</p><div class="section" title="12.1.
Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="12.1.
Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
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="id2586362" href="#ftn.id2586362" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
+$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2891346" href="#ftn.id2891346" 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="id2586400" href="#ftn.id2586400" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
+damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2891384" href="#ftn.id2891384" 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="id2586444"></a>
+negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2891428"></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
world of underground 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">illegal
-art</span>”</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2586463" href="#ftn.id2586463" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
+art</span>”</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2891447" href="#ftn.id2891447" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
what does their <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">illegality</span>”</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
</p><p>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
-law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
+law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
them is not similarly free.
</p><p>
Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
-in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
+in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>”</span> You're not even
going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
which they control it.
-</p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2.
Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2.
Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story—creativity
quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
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="id2
586669"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891653"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
-that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
+that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
from last generation's dominant industries. That lesson has been taught
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
<em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
586724"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891709"></a><p>
In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com was
keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
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="id2586748"></a>
+so on. <a class="indexterm" name="id2891732"></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="id2
586852"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586860"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586866"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586872"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891836"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891844"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891850"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891856"></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="id2586886" href="#ftn.id2586886" 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="id2891870" href="#ftn.id2891870" 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
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 <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
-Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2586933"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2586939"></a>
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
586949"></a><p>
+Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2891917"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2891924"></a>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891933"></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="id2586623" href="#ftn.id2586623" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
+sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <sup>[<a name="id2891607" href="#ftn.id2891607" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This is the world of the mafia—filled with <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">your money or your
life</span>”</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
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="id2587121" href="#ftn.id2587121" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
+or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2892095" href="#ftn.id2892095" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
explore a mandatory <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>”</span> that would be required on
any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
-down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2587151" href="#ftn.id2587151" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
+down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2892124" href="#ftn.id2892124" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
</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="id2587174" href="#ftn.id2587174" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
+impose.<sup>[<a name="id2892148" href="#ftn.id2892148" 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2587187"></a>
+protection should not do more harm than good. <a class="indexterm" name="id2892161"></a>
</p><p>
There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
innovation—again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
</p><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
-<em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2587222" href="#ftn.id2587222" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
+<em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2892196" href="#ftn.id2892196" 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
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="id2587258" href="#ftn.id2587258" 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="id2892232" href="#ftn.id2892232" 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="id2587293" href="#ftn.id2587293" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
+here.<sup>[<a name="id2892267" href="#ftn.id2892267" 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>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="4. CHAPTER FOUR: “Pirates”">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radio performance</span>”</span> unless he or she
is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
version of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span>—to memorialize her famous
performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden— then
whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
owners of <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>”</span> would get some money, whereas
-Marilyn Monroe would not. <a class="indexterm" name="id2587368"></a>
+Marilyn Monroe would not. <a class="indexterm" name="id2892342"></a>
</p><p>
The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
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="id2586965" href="#ftn.id2586965" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
+shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2891949" href="#ftn.id2891949" 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
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2587476" href="#ftn.id2587476" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2892441" href="#ftn.id2892441" 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
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="id2587523" href="#ftn.id2587523" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
+year.<sup>[<a name="id2892488" href="#ftn.id2892488" 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
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="id2
587746"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2587752"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
892711"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892717"></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,
the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="12.3.
Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="12.3.
Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
-million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2587847" href="#ftn.id2587847" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
+million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2892811" href="#ftn.id2892811" 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
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="id2587514" href="#ftn.id2587514" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
+file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2892478" href="#ftn.id2892478" 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="id2587937" href="#ftn.id2587937" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
+were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2892901" href="#ftn.id2892901" 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="id2587954" href="#ftn.id2587954" 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="id2892918" href="#ftn.id2892918" 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="id2587970" href="#ftn.id2587970" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free
+that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2892935" href="#ftn.id2892935" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free
society,</span>”</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
-regularly violate at least some law. <a class="indexterm" name="id2587992"></a>
+regularly violate at least some law. <a class="indexterm" name="id2892956"></a>
</p><p>
This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
today—can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">normally</span>”</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2588010"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2892975"></a>
</p><p>
The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">freedom</span>”</span> was
a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
Burn</span>”</span> capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
588138"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
893114"></a><p>
This <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use</span>”</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">collateral
damage</span>”</span> that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
of the population into criminals.</span>”</span> This is the collateral damage to
-civil liberties generally. <a class="indexterm" name="id2588254"></a>
+civil liberties generally. <a class="indexterm" name="id2893231"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>”</span> von
-Lohmann explains, <a class="indexterm" name="id2588270"></a>
+Lohmann explains, <a class="indexterm" name="id2893247"></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="id2588328" href="#ftn.id2588328" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
+these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2893311" href="#ftn.id2893311" 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="id2588384" href="#ftn.id2588384" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
+to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2893366" href="#ftn.id2893366" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>”</span>
espionage, and she 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">criminal.</span>”</span> And under the rules
-that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2588428" href="#ftn.id2588428" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
+that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2893411" href="#ftn.id2893411" 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>
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">contraband</span>”</span> 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="id2588516"></a>
+Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2893499"></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
millions being considered <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">criminals,</span>”</span> who is the villain?
Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586362" href="#id2586362" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891346" href="#id2891346" 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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">MCI Wins
U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>”</span> (7 July 2003),
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2586387"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586400" href="#id2586400" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2891372"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891384" href="#id2891384" 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, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>”</span> 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="id2586431"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586463" href="#id2586463" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
+months. <a class="indexterm" name="id2891415"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891447" href="#id2891447" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For an overview of the
exhibition, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586886" href="#id2586886" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891870" href="#id2891870" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>”</span>
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,
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586623" href="#id2586623" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891607" href="#id2891607" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. I am grateful to
-Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example. <a class="indexterm" name="id2586984"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587121" href="#id2587121" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
+Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example. <a class="indexterm" name="id2891968"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892095" href="#id2892095" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>”</span>
GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
School (2003), 33–35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587151" href="#id2587151" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892124" href="#id2892124" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587174" href="#id2587174" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892148" href="#id2892148" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
See David McGuire, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>”</span>
Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587222" href="#id2587222" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892196" href="#id2892196" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
-Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id2587229"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587258" href="#id2587258" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
+Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id2892203"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892232" href="#id2892232" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
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 id="ftn.id2587293" href="#id2587293" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892267" href="#id2892267" 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
Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital
media devices. See GartnerG2, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a
-Post-Napster World,</span>”</span> 27 June 2003, 33–34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2587323"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2587331"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586965" href="#id2586965" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
+Post-Napster World,</span>”</span> 27 June 2003, 33–34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2892296"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892305"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891949" href="#id2891949" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587476" href="#id2587476" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892441" href="#id2892441" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587523" href="#id2587523" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892488" href="#id2892488" 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
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.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2587560"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2587569"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587847" href="#id2587847" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
+media-neutral way.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892524"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2892534"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892811" href="#id2892811" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>”</span>
Pew Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #46</a>. The Pew Internet and
American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
music files from the Internet by early 2001.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587514" href="#id2587514" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892478" href="#id2892478" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
Alex Pham, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
Case,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
Business.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587937" href="#id2587937" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892901" href="#id2892901" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
Prohibition,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
no. 2 (1991): 242.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587954" href="#id2587954" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892918" href="#id2892918" 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 id="ftn.id2587970" href="#id2587970" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892935" href="#id2892935" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Tax
Compliance,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
(1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588328" href="#id2588328" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893311" href="#id2893311" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
Snoop Fan, Either,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588384" href="#id2588384" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893366" href="#id2893366" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
See <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
Some Methods Used,</span>”</span> CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588428" href="#id2588428" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893411" href="#id2893411" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
Are Weapons at Universities,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
September 2000, 3D.
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Part IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Part IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Del IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Del IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></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
hvordan du slokker den. Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
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><div class="chapter" title="
13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><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
did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
(<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
588767"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
893750"></a><p>
The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>”</span> 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="id2588790" href="#ftn.id2588790" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
+groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2893772" href="#ftn.id2893772" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
-library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”">10</a>, in 1998, for the
+library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, 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
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">copyrights should be
-forever.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2588846" href="#ftn.id2588846" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
+forever.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2893829" href="#ftn.id2893829" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
effect. If every 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>”</span> as
-Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2588946"></a>
+Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2893928"></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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">theory</span>”</span> 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="id2589140" href="#ftn.id2589140" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
+Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2894122" href="#ftn.id2894122" 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="id2589157" href="#ftn.id2589157" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
-reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2589176" href="#ftn.id2589176" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
+than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2894140" href="#ftn.id2894140" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
+reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2894158" href="#ftn.id2894158" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce. A Constitution
designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
589254"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
894237"></a><p>
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
</p><p>
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
-arguments,</span>”</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2589288" href="#ftn.id2589288" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
+arguments,</span>”</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2894271" href="#ftn.id2894271" 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 <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="id2589315" href="#ftn.id2589315" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
+v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2894298" href="#ftn.id2894298" 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="id2589335" href="#ftn.id2589335" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2894318" href="#ftn.id2894318" 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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stopping
</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 <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2589425" href="#ftn.id2589425" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
+domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2894408" href="#ftn.id2894408" 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2589451"></a>
+pirate's charter. <a class="indexterm" name="id2894434"></a>
</p><p>
As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
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="id2589496" href="#ftn.id2589496" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
+generally.<sup>[<a name="id2894478" href="#ftn.id2894478" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
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="id2
589624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2589630"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2589637"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
894607"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894613"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894620"></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
controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
-films.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2589661" href="#ftn.id2589661" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2589684"></a>
+films.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2894644" href="#ftn.id2894644" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2894666"></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="id2589721" href="#ftn.id2589721" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
+cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2894703" href="#ftn.id2894703" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
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="id2589983" href="#ftn.id2589983" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
+value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2894977" href="#ftn.id2894977" 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="id2
590112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895106"></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="id2
590134"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590141"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590147"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895134"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895141"></a><p>
There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff Stewart was
the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became quite
involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view about how this
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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2590272"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590278"></a>
+Schlafly argued. <a class="indexterm" name="id2895254"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895260"></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="id2590307"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590316"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590322"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590328"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2895289"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895297"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895304"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895310"></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
the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
-National Writers Union. <a class="indexterm" name="id2590342"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590349"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
590356"></a><p>
+National Writers Union. <a class="indexterm" name="id2895324"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895331"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895338"></a><p>
But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
made the economic argument absolutely clear.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
590370"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590377"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590383"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590389"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590395"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895358"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895365"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895371"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895377"></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="id2590431"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590440"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590446"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590452"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2895413"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895421"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895428"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895434"></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="id2590472"></a>
+the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. <a class="indexterm" name="id2895454"></a>
</p><p>
The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">friends</span>”</span> included
Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work— better
than allowing it to fall into the public domain—because if this
creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2590512" href="#ftn.id2590512" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2895494" href="#ftn.id2895494" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
which defended its <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">protection</span>”</span> of the work of George
Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
-cast.<sup>[<a name="id2590537" href="#ftn.id2590537" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
+cast.<sup>[<a name="id2895518" href="#ftn.id2895518" 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="id2590553"></a>
+help them effect that control. <a class="indexterm" name="id2895535"></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
favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. Between
February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
590583"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895565"></a><p>
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>”</span> The other we called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">the
Rest.</span>”</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
that Congress's powers had limits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
590619"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895601"></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="id2
590653"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895635"></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
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="id2
590787"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590793"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895762"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895768"></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="id2590806"></a>
+of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2895781"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">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.</span>”</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
590819"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895794"></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="id2
590948"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
895923"></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
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="id2
591139"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896114"></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="id2
591158"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896133"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
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="id2
591271"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896246"></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="id2
591313"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896288"></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="id2591324"></a>
+Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2896300"></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. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>”</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
-issue should not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2591358"></a>
+issue should not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2896334"></a>
</p><p>
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
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 (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figure 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>). The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>”</span> line is a bit
-unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2591420"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2591441"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figur 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>). The <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>”</span> line is a bit
+unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2896413"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2896434"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">grand
experiment</span>”</span> we call the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">public domain</span>”</span> is over? When I
Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
have made them see differently.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588790" href="#id2588790" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893772" href="#id2893772" 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 id="ftn.id2588846" href="#id2588846" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
+protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893829" href="#id2893829" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
The full text is: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>”</span> 144
Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589140" href="#id2589140" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894122" href="#id2894122" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
Associated Press, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589157" href="#id2589157" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894140" href="#id2894140" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
Age,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#49</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589176" href="#id2589176" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894158" href="#id2894158" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990,
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589288" href="#id2589288" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894271" href="#id2894271" 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 id="ftn.id2589315" href="#id2589315" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894298" href="#id2894298" 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 id="ftn.id2589335" href="#id2589335" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894318" href="#id2894318" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
copyrights—the limitation to <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">limited times</span>”</span>
notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589425" href="#id2589425" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894408" href="#id2894408" 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 id="ftn.id2589496" href="#id2589496" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894478" href="#id2894478" 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, <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 id="ftn.id2589661" href="#id2589661" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894644" href="#id2894644" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
Streitfeld, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589721" href="#id2589721" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894703" href="#id2894703" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
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 id="ftn.id2589983" href="#id2589983" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894977" href="#id2894977" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>”</span>
20 December 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590512" href="#id2590512" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895494" href="#id2895494" class="para">192</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 id="ftn.id2590537" href="#id2590537" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895518" href="#id2895518" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
Joins the Fray,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
1998, B7.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><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
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="id2
591493"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896485"></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
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="id2
591558"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896550"></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="id2
591592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2591598"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896590"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
-before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2591616" href="#ftn.id2591616" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
+before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2896608" href="#ftn.id2896608" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">natural right.</span>”</span>
Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Walt
Disney creativity</span>”</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
what's protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
591678"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896670"></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
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, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
-take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id2591783"></a>
+take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id2896775"></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
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="id2
591876"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896869"></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
2003, it looked as if the bill would be introduced. On May 16, I posted on
the Eldred Act blog, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">we are close.</span>”</span> There was a general
reaction in the blog community that something good might happen here.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2591908"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2896900"></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
to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>”</span> that fills archives
around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
-ask one simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id2592026"></a>
+ask one simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id2897018"></a>
</p><p>
Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
</p><p>
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="id2
592083"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2592089"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
897075"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897081"></a><p>
Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom. MPAA
står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
society.</span>”</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2591616" href="#id2591616" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896608" href="#id2896608" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
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, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
-Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153–54. </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153–54. </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><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
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="id2592175" href="#ftn.id2592175" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
+utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2897205" href="#ftn.id2897205" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is
called <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>”</span> and it is generally permitted
under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the
-European Union.<sup>[<a name="id2592262" href="#ftn.id2592262" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
+European Union.<sup>[<a name="id2897292" href="#ftn.id2897292" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than
opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
characterized it, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa …
-not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2588915" href="#ftn.id2588915" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Through the Office of the United States Trade
+not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.</span>”</span><sup>[<a name="id2893898" href="#ftn.id2893898" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Through the Office of the United States Trade
Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the
law—and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed
South Africa for possible trade sanctions. That same year, more than forty
kind of patent— pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these
governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa
respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any
-effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<sup>[<a name="id2592318" href="#ftn.id2592318" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
+effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<sup>[<a name="id2897349" href="#ftn.id2897349" 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>
Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of information,
which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument about the
-sanctity of property.<sup>[<a name="id2592406" href="#ftn.id2592406" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> It was because
+sanctity of property.<sup>[<a name="id2897437" href="#ftn.id2897437" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> It was because
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> would be violated that these drugs
should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the importance of
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>”</span> that led these government actors to
balansert politikk. For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
</p><p>
-
Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse. Vi har mistet det
kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
ekstremisme. En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur—sært, og med konsekvenser mer
alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
-enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte. En enkel idé blender oss, og
-under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi
-hadde fulgt med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at
-vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til
-idéer for et folk som dør uten dem. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om
-eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen
-over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
-demokratisk. Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
-som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
-denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
+enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897614"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897639"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897647"></a><p>
+
+En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
+av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med. Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
+idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
+det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem. Så ukritisk
+aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
+spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
+folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk. Blindhet blir vår sunne
+fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
+kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
</p><p>
So far, common sense sleeps. There is no revolt. Common sense does not yet
see what there could be to revolt about. The extremism that now dominates
city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even noticed. Powerful lobbies,
complex issues, and MTV attention spans produce the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">perfect
storm</span>”</span> for free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
592632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
874765"></a><p>
In August 2003, a fight broke out in the United States about a decision by
the World Intellectual Property Organization to cancel a
-meeting.<sup>[<a name="id2592642" href="#ftn.id2592642" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> At the request of a wide range
+meeting.<sup>[<a name="id2874777" href="#ftn.id2874777" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> At the request of a wide range
of interests, WIPO had decided to hold a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open and
collaborative projects to create public goods.</span>”</span> These are projects
that have been successful in producing public goods without relying
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola,
Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It included the Global Positioning System,
which Ronald Reagan set free in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open
-source and free software.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592732"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2592741"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592747"></a>
+source and free software.</span>”</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874855"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2874864"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874871"></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="id2592772" href="#ftn.id2592772" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2874896" href="#ftn.id2874896" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak
vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source and free
software</span>”</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead, to
support a mode of software development that is different from
-Microsoft's.<sup>[<a name="id2592880" href="#ftn.id2592880" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592932"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592938"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2592946"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592953"></a>
+Microsoft's.<sup>[<a name="id2898220" href="#ftn.id2898220" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898271"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898277"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2898286"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898292"></a>
</p><p>
More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">open source and free
ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd. I
følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
-slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2593008" href="#ftn.id2593008" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
-møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id2593026"></a>
+slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2898347" href="#ftn.id2898347" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
+møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id2898365"></a>
</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
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="id2593135"></a>
+to decide what to do with <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> property. <a class="indexterm" name="id2898475"></a>
</p><p>
When Ms. Boland says that there is something wrong with a meeting
liberating people or property within their control to the free
market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control and concentration. It fought
any freedom that might interfere with that control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
593192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2593198"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898523"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898529"></a><p>
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
-vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2593211" href="#ftn.id2593211" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
+vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2898542" href="#ftn.id2898542" 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
<span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>. Trenden er
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="id2
593339"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898670"></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 eierskapsregler, 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="id2593367"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2593374"></a>
+krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. <a class="indexterm" name="id2898698"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898705"></a>
</p><p>
Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige 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="id2
593472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898803"></a><p>
As I write these final words, the news is filled with stories about the RIAA
-lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.<sup>[<a name="id2593483" href="#ftn.id2593483" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem has just been sued for
-<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sampling</span>”</span> someone else's music.<sup>[<a name="id2593550" href="#ftn.id2593550" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stealing</span>”</span> from a Japanese
-author has just finished making the rounds.<sup>[<a name="id2593571" href="#ftn.id2593571" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> An insider from Hollywood—who insists he must remain
+lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.<sup>[<a name="id2898814" href="#ftn.id2898814" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem has just been sued for
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">sampling</span>”</span> someone else's music.<sup>[<a name="id2898880" href="#ftn.id2898880" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">stealing</span>”</span> from a Japanese
+author has just finished making the rounds.<sup>[<a name="id2898902" href="#ftn.id2898902" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> An insider from Hollywood—who insists he must remain
anonymous—reports <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use but
can't because they can't begin to clear the rights. They've got scores of
deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers thought to violate the
law. Universities are threatening expulsion for kids who use a computer to
share content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
593605"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2593612"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2593618"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2593624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898942"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898949"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898955"></a><p>
Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced that it
will build a <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>”</span> from which British citizens
-can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<sup>[<a name="id2593641" href="#ftn.id2593641" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil,
+can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<sup>[<a name="id2898972" href="#ftn.id2898972" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2593662" href="#ftn.id2593662" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> I've told a dark story. The
+country.<sup>[<a name="id2898992" href="#ftn.id2898992" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> I've told a dark story. The
truth is more mixed. A technology has given us a new freedom. Slowly, some
begin to understand that this freedom need not mean anarchy. We can carry a
free culture into the twenty-first century, without artists losing and
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592175" href="#id2592175" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897205" href="#id2897205" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>”</span> (London, 2002),
#55</a>. According to a World Health Organization press release issued 9
July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in the developing
world receive them—and half of them are in Brazil.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592262" href="#id2592262" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897292" href="#id2897292" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
-37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2592271"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592279"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588915" href="#id2588915" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
+37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2897302"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897310"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893898" href="#id2893898" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
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 id="ftn.id2592318" href="#id2592318" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897349" href="#id2897349" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
-Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592406" href="#id2592406" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897437" href="#id2897437" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592642" href="#id2592642" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874777" href="#id2874777" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, August 2003, E1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
WIPO,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19
August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#61</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592772" href="#id2592772" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874896" href="#id2874896" 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 id="ftn.id2592880" href="#id2592880" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898220" href="#id2898220" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
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 id="ftn.id2593008" href="#id2593008" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898347" href="#id2898347" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
Krim, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>”</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593211" href="#id2593211" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898542" href="#id2898542" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
-210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2592321"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593483" href="#id2593483" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2897352"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898814" href="#id2898814" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
John Borland, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>”</span> CNET News.com,
N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10
September 2003, E1; Katie Dean, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>”</span>
<em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>, 10 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593550" href="#id2593550" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898880" href="#id2898880" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old
Lady,</span>”</span> mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593571" href="#id2593571" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898902" href="#id2898902" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
Dylan Songs,</span>”</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593641" href="#id2593641" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898972" href="#id2898972" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>”</span> BBC press
release, 24 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593662" href="#id2593662" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898992" href="#id2898992" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>”</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6
August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#71</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Kapittel 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
imot, men likevel, det betyr noe. Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
fri kultur.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.1.
Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>16.1. Oss, nå</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.1.
Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>16.1. Oss, nå</h2></div></div></div><p>
Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
been framed at the extremes—as a grand either/or: either property or
anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
for granted before.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.1.1.
Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.1.1.
Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
</p><p>
Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
</p><p>
-Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”">10</a>, your privacy was
+Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, your privacy was
assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
(there is no law protecting <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span> in public places), and in
many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
593929"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899260"></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
viewed</span>”</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span>
-protected by the friction disappears, too. <a class="indexterm" name="id2593952"></a>
+protected by the friction disappears, too. <a class="indexterm" name="id2899283"></a>
</p><p>
Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">privacy</span>”</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
-for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2593986" href="#ftn.id2593986" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
+for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2899316" href="#ftn.id2899316" 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
commercially, the software—both the source code and the
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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2594027"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
594038"></a><p>
+about controlling their software. <a class="indexterm" name="id2899358"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899369"></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
system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was
the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Linux</span>”</span> kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating
-system. <a class="indexterm" name="id2594106"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2594112"></a>
+system. <a class="indexterm" name="id2899437"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899443"></a>
</p><p>
Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
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="id2594249"></a>
+inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2899566"></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
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
594259"></a></div><div class="section" title="16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899577"></a></div><div class="section" title="16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
</p><p>
movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">content
conducers,</span>”</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the
public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
-domain to other creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id2594398"></a>
+domain to other creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id2899715"></a>
</p><p>
The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>”</span> sorts. The
aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
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.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2594473"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2594482"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
594489"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2594495"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2899790"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899799"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899806"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2899812"></a><p>
These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
(Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">allow</span>”</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
-are so high<sup>[<a name="id2594527" href="#ftn.id2594527" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
+are so high<sup>[<a name="id2899844" href="#ftn.id2899844" 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2594549"></a>
+their form of creativity might grow. <a class="indexterm" name="id2899866"></a>
</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="id2
594608"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2. Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899925"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2. Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. 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
one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
end.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.
1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.
1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed. If
you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
</p><p>
Why?
</p><p>
-As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: “Property”">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
+As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
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="id2594716" href="#ftn.id2594716" 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="id2900033" href="#ftn.id2900033" 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>
something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
approving standards developed by others.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.1.
Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.1.
Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
of this formality—while producing a database of registrations that
would facilitate the licensing of content.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.1.2.
Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>16.2.1.2. Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.1.2.
Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>16.2.1.2. Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
failing to comply with a regulatory rule—akin to imposing the death
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="id2594840" href="#ftn.id2594840" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
+permission.<sup>[<a name="id2900156" href="#ftn.id2900156" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
work would therefore be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>”</span> If
someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
the appropriate time.
-</p></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2.2.
2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2.2.
2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
for individuelle forfattere.
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="id2594968" href="#ftn.id2594968" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
+fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2900285" href="#ftn.id2900285" 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
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="id2595072" href="#ftn.id2595072" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
+for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2900389" href="#ftn.id2900389" 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="id2595092"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2900408"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
recommended was longer than the term under Richard Nixon. How
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">radical</span>”</span> can it be to ask for a more generous copyright law
than Richard Nixon presided over?
-</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3.
3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3.
3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><p>
As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
</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="id2595202" href="#ftn.id2595202" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
+dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2900519" href="#ftn.id2900519" 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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2595217"></a>
+Benjamin Kaplan. <a class="indexterm" name="id2900533"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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="id2595232" href="#ftn.id2595232" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
+abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2900549" href="#ftn.id2900549" 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
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="id2595263"></a>
+after the creative work is done. <a class="indexterm" name="id2900579"></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
</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="id2595316" href="#ftn.id2595316" 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="id2900626" href="#ftn.id2900626" 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
conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
would earn artists more income.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4.
4. Frigjør musikken—igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4.
4. Frigjør musikken—igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
most pressing—music. There is no other policy issue that better
</p><p>
File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
-all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="5. CHAPTER FIVE: “Piracy”">5</a>, they enable four
+all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”">5</a>, they enable four
different kinds of sharing:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
weakened.
</p><p>
-As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="5. CHAPTER FIVE: “Piracy”">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For
+As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For
the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">free</span>”</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
-Web.<sup>[<a name="id2595564" href="#ftn.id2595564" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
+Web.<sup>[<a name="id2900874" href="#ftn.id2900874" 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="id2595744" href="#ftn.id2595744" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
+Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2901054" href="#ftn.id2901054" 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
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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2595910"></a>
+old system of controlling access. <a class="indexterm" name="id2901220"></a>
</p><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
do with the content itself.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
595928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
901238"></a><p>
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">harm</span>”</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
ødelegge internettet. Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
som internettet er.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.5.
5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.5.
5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to the Copyright Term
Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the dominant scholar and
practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville Nimmer, thought it
-obvious.<sup>[<a name="id2596176" href="#ftn.id2596176" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
+obvious.<sup>[<a name="id2901486" href="#ftn.id2901486" 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="id2596212" href="#ftn.id2596212" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
+lav.<sup>[<a name="id2901522" href="#ftn.id2901522" 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>
til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
</p><p>
-The law should regulate in certain areas of culture—but it should
-regulate culture only where that regulation does good. Yet lawyers rarely
-test their power, or the power they promote, against this simple pragmatic
-question: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Will it do good?</span>”</span> When challenged about the
-expanding reach of the law, the lawyer answers, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Why not?</span>”</span>
+Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen—men det bør regulere
+kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
+sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
+spørsmålet: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>”</span>. Når de blir utfordret
+om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hvorfor
+ikke?</span>”</span>
</p><p>
-We should ask, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Why?</span>”</span> Show me why your regulation of culture is
-needed. Show me how it does good. And until you can show me both, keep your
-lawyers away.
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593986" href="#id2593986" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
+Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>”</span>. 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 id="ftn.id2899316" href="#id2899316" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
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 id="ftn.id2594527" href="#id2594527" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
+technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899844" href="#id2899844" class="para">211</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 id="ftn.id2594716" href="#id2594716" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900033" href="#id2900033" 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 id="ftn.id2594840" href="#id2594840" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
+by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900156" href="#id2900156" 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 id="ftn.id2594968" href="#id2594968" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900285" href="#id2900285" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>”</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
(25 January 2003): 15, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595072" href="#id2595072" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900389" href="#id2900389" 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 id="ftn.id2595202" href="#id2595202" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900519" href="#id2900519" class="para">216</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 id="ftn.id2595232" href="#id2595232" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900549" href="#id2900549" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595316" href="#id2595316" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900626" href="#id2900626" class="para">218</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="id2594000"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595564" href="#id2595564" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
+187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="id2899331"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900874" href="#id2900874" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
See, for example, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>”</span> The J@pan
Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595744" href="#id2595744" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901054" href="#id2901054" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
Possibilities</em> (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at
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="id2595858"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2595866"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2595872"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2596176" href="#id2596176" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2901168"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901176"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901182"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901486" href="#id2901486" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>”</span> (Melville
B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48
(2001): 1057, 1069–70.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2596212" href="#id2596212" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901522" href="#id2901522" 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
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="id2596188"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2901498"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 17. 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
ustabile. Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
lenken. Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
til en passende referanse til materialet.
-</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Kapittel 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
596422"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
901742"></a><p>
Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
mens jeg var der.
</p><p>
-These are the traditional sorts of help that academics regularly draw
-upon. But in addition to them, the Internet has made it possible to receive
-advice and correction from many whom I have never even met. Among those who
-have responded with extremely helpful advice to requests on my blog about
-the book are Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein, and Peter DiMauro, as
-well as a long list of those who had specific ideas about ways to develop my
-argument. They included Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik
-Cubrilovic, Bob Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson,
-Jeremy Hunsinger, Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James
-Lindenschmidt, K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan
-McMullen, Fred Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D. Rezende, Shabbir Safdar,
-Saul Schleimer, Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith,
-Bruce Steinberg, Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko
-Williams, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Wink,</span>”</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>”</span>
-and Richard Yanco. (I apologize if I have missed anyone; with computers come
-glitches, and a crash of my e-mail system meant I lost a bunch of great
-replies.)
+Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
+trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
+og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt. Blant de som har svart med
+svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
+Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
+som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på. De
+inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
+Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
+Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
+K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
+Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D. Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
+Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
+Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
+<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Wink,</span>”</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>”</span> og Richard
+Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
+feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
+flotte svar.)
</p><p>
Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
hatt rett. Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
-</p></div><div class="index" title="Inde
x"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2596549"></a>Index</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Adromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">“PIRACY”</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">“PIRACY”</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">“PIRACY”</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">“PIRACY”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">“PIRACY”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">“PIRACY”</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: “Property”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: “Mere Copyists”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">“PIRACY”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>
+</p></div><div class="index" title="Inde
ks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2901872"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Adromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2875664">“Piratvirksomhet”</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2875664">“Piratvirksomhet”</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2875664">“Piratvirksomhet”</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2875664">“Piratvirksomhet”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2875664">“Piratvirksomhet”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id2875664">“Piratvirksomhet”</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2875664">“Piratvirksomhet”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / commitdiff
