<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 Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific American's 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store 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="id2
853537"></a><p>
+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="id2
773525"></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
The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
</p><p>
Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
823771"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
719115"></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">Piratvirksomhet</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="#id2
909651">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2823637"></a>Kolofon</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">Piratvirksomhet</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="#id2
805818">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2719460"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street
New York, New York
</p><p>
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
823460"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
719885"></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
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="id2824109" href="#ftn.id2824109" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
+programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2719930" href="#ftn.id2719930" 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
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="id2
824190"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2824197"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
720010"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2720017"></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
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="id2824226"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2720046"></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="id2824249" href="#ftn.id2824249" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2720070" href="#ftn.id2720070" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
</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. januar 2000
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2824109" href="#id2824109" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2719930" href="#id2719930" 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.id2824249" href="#id2824249" 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="id2824260"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtraffic"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownership"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxproprigtair"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
879709"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2720070" href="#id2720070" 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="id2720080"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtraffic"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownership"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxproprigtair"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
775956"></a><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
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="id2879743" href="#ftn.id2879743" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
+bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2775990" href="#ftn.id2775990" 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?
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
879763"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879788"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
776010"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2776035"></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
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
879814"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879821"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
776061"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2776068"></a><p>
Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
strid med sunn fornuft. Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
-eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2879872" href="#ftn.id2879872" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2776119" href="#ftn.id2776119" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
</p><p>
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="id2
879958"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879965"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879972"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
776205"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2776212"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2776218"></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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
880021"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880042"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwin"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
776269"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2776279"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2776290"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwin"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> er en av USAs
glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham Bell. Alle hans bidrag på området
som var bokbinderlærling da han 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="id2880086"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2880097"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880103"></a>
+forståelse av radio et hopp videre. <a class="indexterm" name="id2776334"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2776345"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2776351"></a>
</p><p>
Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde
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="id2880179" href="#ftn.id2880179" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
+radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2776426" href="#ftn.id2776426" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
støy fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>. Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
-oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2880223"></a>
+oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2776471"></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="id2880115" href="#ftn.id2880115" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2776362" href="#ftn.id2776362" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessing"></a><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="id2880283"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2776531"></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="id2880310" href="#ftn.id2880310" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
+makt.<sup>[<a name="id2776558" href="#ftn.id2776558" 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="id2880324" href="#ftn.id2880324" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
880367"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880375"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2776572" href="#ftn.id2776572" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
776615"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2776622"></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
ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning. Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
880397"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
776644"></a><p>
Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger. Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
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="id2880465" href="#ftn.id2880465" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
+tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2776711" href="#ftn.id2776711" 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
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="id2880550"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2880558"></a>
+så var det kommersiell kultur. <a class="indexterm" name="id2776797"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2776805"></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
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="id2880600" href="#ftn.id2880600" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2776846" href="#ftn.id2776846" 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="id2880642" href="#ftn.id2880642" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
+fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2776889" href="#ftn.id2776889" 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
<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="id2822752" href="#ftn.id2822752" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2718506" href="#ftn.id2718506" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
respektere eiendomsretten. For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
eiendomsrett eller mot den.
av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
kontroll. Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
-kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2881003" href="#ftn.id2881003" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2777251" href="#ftn.id2777251" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
skaperne mot privat kontroll. Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
tradisjonen til velgjørere. I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
internett-teknologiene. Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
til denne krigen. Vi må finne en løsning snart.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
881090"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881095"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
777337"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2777343"></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
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="id2
881147"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881153"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881159"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
777394"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2777400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2777407"></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
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
881258"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
777505"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2777512"></a><p>
Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk. Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon—en konsekvens
for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879743" href="#id2879743" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2775990" href="#id2775990" 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.id2879872" href="#id2879872" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776119" href="#id2776119" 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
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="id2879911"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879907"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880179" href="#id2880179" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
+Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2776158"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2776154"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776426" href="#id2776426" 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.id2880115" href="#id2880115" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776362" href="#id2776362" 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.id2880310" href="#id2880310" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880324" href="#id2880324" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776558" href="#id2776558" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776572" href="#id2776572" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880465" href="#id2880465" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776711" href="#id2776711" 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, 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.id2880600" href="#id2880600" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776846" href="#id2776846" 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
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="id2880094"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880642" href="#id2880642" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2776342"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776889" href="#id2776889" 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="id2880650"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2822752" href="#id2822752" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2776897"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2718506" href="#id2718506" 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. januar 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881003" href="#id2881003" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2777251" href="#id2777251" 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="id2881014"></a>
+<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2777261"></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
</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="id2881428" href="#ftn.id2881428" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
881443"></a></blockquote></div><p>
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2777676" href="#ftn.id2777676" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
777690"></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.
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="id2
881565"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvalue"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
777812"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvalue"></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="id2881597" href="#ftn.id2881597" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
+rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2777844" href="#ftn.id2777844" 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="id2881620" href="#ftn.id2881620" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
+leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2777867" href="#ftn.id2777867" 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="id2
881664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
777911"></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
<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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
881691"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
777938"></a><p>
I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
til verdien av kreativitet. Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt. Vi
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="id2
881729"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881735"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
777976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2777982"></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
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="id2881774" href="#ftn.id2881774" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
+av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2778021" href="#ftn.id2778021" 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.id2881428" href="#id2881428" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2777676" href="#id2777676" 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.id2881597" href="#id2881597" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2777844" href="#id2777844" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
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.id2881620" href="#id2881620" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2777867" href="#id2777867" 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,
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="id2881645"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881774" href="#id2881774" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
+Globe</em>, 24. november 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2777892"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2778021" href="#id2778021" 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="id2881816"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2881824"></a>
+vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2778063"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2778072"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>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>.
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="id2881954" href="#ftn.id2881954" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
+var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2778202" href="#ftn.id2778202" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
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="id2881981"></a>
+bra.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2778228"></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
<em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
Steamboat Willie. Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
-Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2882052" href="#ftn.id2882052" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
+Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2778299" href="#ftn.id2778299" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
som kilde. Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
<em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
Willie</em>. Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
</p><p>
Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">låningen</span>»</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
industrien. Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
-ham.<sup>[<a name="id2882125" href="#ftn.id2882125" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
+ham.<sup>[<a name="id2778372" href="#ftn.id2778372" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger—små variasjoner
over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt. Nøkkelen til
suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene. Med Disney var det lyden som ga
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
882255"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
778503"></a><p>
Dette er en type kreativitet. Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
feire. Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
denne typen. Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
fersk. Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
levende. Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
år—for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
-opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2882282" href="#ftn.id2882282" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2778529" href="#ftn.id2778529" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>»</span> til a
kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse
Japan i dag. … Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
hverandre. … Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne—ved å se i
tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
-dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2882578" href="#ftn.id2882578" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
882604"></a><p>
+dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2778825" href="#ftn.id2778825" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
778851"></a><p>
Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
får lov til. Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er det
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
gamle.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
882637"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
778884"></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="id2882662" href="#ftn.id2882662" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
+bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2778910" href="#ftn.id2778910" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hold hendene
Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>. Jeg er en av de som
feierer. Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2882775" href="#ftn.id2882775" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2779022" href="#ftn.id2779022" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
</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.id2881954" href="#id2881954" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2778202" href="#id2778202" 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.id2882052" href="#id2882052" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2778299" href="#id2778299" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
<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.id2882125" href="#id2882125" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2778372" href="#id2778372" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882282" href="#id2882282" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2778529" href="#id2778529" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#6</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882578" href="#id2882578" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2778825" href="#id2778825" 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.id2882662" href="#id2882662" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2778910" href="#id2778910" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882775" href="#id2882775" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779022" href="#id2779022" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rettigheter—opphavsretter, patenter,
varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter—men egenskapene til disse
-rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2882796"></a>
+rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2779044"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
produsere det vi ville kalle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>. Rimelig nok ble de
feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
velstående amatører. (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
-ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.) <a class="indexterm" name="id2883055"></a>
+ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.) <a class="indexterm" name="id2779303"></a>
</p><p>
Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
sterk. Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det. Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
-fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883090"></a>
+fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id2779338"></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken. Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
dens enkelhet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
-resten.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883140" href="#ftn.id2883140" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
-<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2883154"></a>
+resten.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2779387" href="#ftn.id2779387" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
+<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2779401"></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="id2880357" href="#ftn.id2880357" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
+et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2776605" href="#ftn.id2776605" 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="id2883219" href="#ftn.id2883219" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
-samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2883228" href="#ftn.id2883228" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
883237"></a><p>
+prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2779466" href="#ftn.id2779466" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
+samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2779476" href="#ftn.id2779476" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
779485"></a><p>
Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
og dens aktiviteter. … For første gang i historien fantes det en
autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
-laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883170" href="#ftn.id2883170" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
+laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2779417" href="#ftn.id2779417" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
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="id2883322" href="#ftn.id2883322" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
+trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2779569" href="#ftn.id2779569" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
tok målets sjel. På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
882956"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
779204"></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="id2883391" href="#ftn.id2883391" 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="id2779639" href="#ftn.id2779639" 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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
883430"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
779678"></a><p>
Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene. Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre. I stedet
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="id2883452" href="#ftn.id2883452" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
+fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2779700" href="#ftn.id2779700" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
</p><p>
Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
hadde slått ut den andre veien. Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media. Ved å
gjøre, så tenker de. Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
883579"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883586"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
779827"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2779834"></a><p>
Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
og billigere. Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
dramatisk. Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000. I dag kan du
-få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883617" href="#ftn.id2883617" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
+få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2779865" href="#ftn.id2779865" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden. Og det er nå mulig å
forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
evnen til … å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker
-dem</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883672"></a>
+dem</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2779920"></a>
</p><p>
Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>»</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
skrive. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>»</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
883700"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
779947"></a><p>
Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
-reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2883714" href="#ftn.id2883714" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
+reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2779962" href="#ftn.id2779962" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>»</span> til media. For på samme måte som
det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media. Og
akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
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
883754"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
780002"></a><p>
Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg. Da
det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, … rytme, skritt og
-tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2883813" href="#ftn.id2883813" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
+tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2780061" href="#ftn.id2780061" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spillt</span>»</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den
enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
lære. Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
-forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id2883857" href="#ftn.id2883857" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
883885"></a><p>
+forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id2780106" href="#ftn.id2780106" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
780133"></a><p>
Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
blir ledet gjennom en film. Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede. Målet med
enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gi folket
myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
-uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2883970" href="#ftn.id2883970" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
+uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2780218" href="#ftn.id2780218" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
-århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2883992" href="#ftn.id2883992" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884000"></a><p>
+århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2780240" href="#ftn.id2780240" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
780248"></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
noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe. De trengte faktisk å
bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra. Men de hadde begynt å
forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884222"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
780470"></a><p>
Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
til denne nyheten. Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
underholdning</span>»</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884269"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884274"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
780517"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2780522"></a><p>
Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedien
11. september</span>»</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
valgene teller. Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
rutinepreget. De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884410"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
780658"></a><p>
Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg. Demokrati betyr at folket
styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg. I vår tradisjon betyr det
også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning. Dette var idéen som
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
-avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2884456" href="#ftn.id2884456" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
+avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2780704" href="#ftn.id2780704" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag. Og i dets sted er det
ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
-innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id2884478" href="#ftn.id2884478" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
+innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id2780726" href="#ftn.id2780726" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
å gjennomføre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>»</span>.
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="id2884516" href="#ftn.id2884516" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
+ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2780764" href="#ftn.id2780764" 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="id2884573"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884580"></a><p>
+lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2780822"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
780828"></a><p>
En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
store mediene. Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel. Da Logg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sa
feil</span>»</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien. Etter hvert dukket flere og
flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>»</span> opp. Så dukket
historien opp igjen hos de store mediene. Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
-trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id2884614" href="#ftn.id2884614" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884626"></a>
+trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id2780862" href="#ftn.id2780862" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2780874"></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.
meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884707"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884713"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
780955"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2780962"></a><p>
Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
konsentert (mer om dette under). Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan—slik CNN innrømte at de
gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
-ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2884434" href="#ftn.id2884434" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
+ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2780682" href="#ftn.id2780682" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
en mer konsistent rapportering. (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq. New York-hovedkvarteret ba
komme med deres rapport. Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
-hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id2884777" href="#ftn.id2884777" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
+hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id2781025" href="#ftn.id2781025" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulere</span>»</span>,
som Winer formulerer det, sannheten. Blogger, sier Winer,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalismen</span>»</span> er glad for
dette—noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
-blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2884813" href="#ftn.id2884813" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
+blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2781061" href="#ftn.id2781061" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
fortsatt er i en overgangsfase. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
oppvarmingsøvelser</span>»</span>, fortalte Winer meg. Det er mye som må modne før
dette området har sin modne effekt. Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
kritikk forbedrer demokratiet. I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
blogger der det skrives på denne måten. Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
884950"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781198"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i
følge hans eget nettsted, er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og … å skape
kunnskapsøkologier for å skape … innovasjon</span>»</span>.
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="id2
885135"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2885142"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781383"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2781390"></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
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 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="id2885193" href="#ftn.id2885193" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det
+gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2781442" href="#ftn.id2781442" 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>
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
885252"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781501"></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
<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 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.id2883140" href="#id2883140" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779387" href="#id2779387" 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.id2880357" href="#id2880357" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2776605" href="#id2776605" 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="id2883193"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883219" href="#id2883219" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
+Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id2779440"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779466" href="#id2779466" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883228" href="#id2883228" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779476" href="#id2779476" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883170" href="#id2883170" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779417" href="#id2779417" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883322" href="#id2883322" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779569" href="#id2779569" 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.id2883391" href="#id2883391" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779639" href="#id2779639" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
Samuel D. Warren og 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="id2883402"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883411"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883452" href="#id2883452" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2779650"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2779659"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779700" href="#id2779700" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
(1960) 398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883617" href="#id2883617" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779865" href="#id2779865" 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, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883714" href="#id2883714" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2779962" href="#id2779962" 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. mai
1997, B6.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883813" href="#id2883813" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780061" href="#id2780061" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2883821"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883829"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883857" href="#id2883857" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2780069"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2780077"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780106" href="#id2780106" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>»</span>, E!online,
4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <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, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883970" href="#id2883970" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780218" href="#id2780218" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883977"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883992" href="#id2883992" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2780225"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780240" href="#id2780240" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884456" href="#id2884456" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780704" href="#id2780704" 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.id2884478" href="#id2884478" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780726" href="#id2780726" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
Bruce Ackerman og 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.id2884516" href="#id2884516" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780764" href="#id2780764" 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.id2884614" href="#id2884614" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780862" href="#id2780862" 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. januar 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884434" href="#id2884434" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2780682" href="#id2780682" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884777" href="#id2884777" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2781025" href="#id2781025" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
Strong Overall</span>»</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#10</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884813" href="#id2884813" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2781061" href="#id2781061" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2884844"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884852"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884858"></a> Se Michael Falcone,
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2781092"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2781100"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2781106"></a> Se 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">Ikke alle
nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like stor aksept for ansatte som
<em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en
personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av
temaene og folkene som han dekket.</span>»</span>)
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885193" href="#id2885193" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2781442" href="#id2781442" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
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="Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
885302"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781550"></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
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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
885549"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781797"></a><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
Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
$15 000 000.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
885575"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2885585"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781822"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2781833"></a><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
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="id2885618" href="#ftn.id2885618" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
885635"></a><p>
+2001.<sup>[<a name="id2781866" href="#ftn.id2781866" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781883"></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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
885656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781904"></a><p>
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
</p><p>
Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
885697"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
781945"></a><p>
Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral. La oss
legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen. Hvor er 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="id2885702" href="#ftn.id2885702" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
+gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2781950" href="#ftn.id2781950" 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="id2885759" href="#ftn.id2885759" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
+student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2782006" href="#ftn.id2782006" 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
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.id2885618" href="#id2885618" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2781866" href="#id2781866" 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, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885702" href="#id2885702" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2781950" href="#id2781950" 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.id2885759" href="#id2885759" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782006" href="#id2782006" 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 fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
885834"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
782081"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr</strong></span>
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
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="id2885886" href="#ftn.id2885886" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
+Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2782133" href="#ftn.id2782133" 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
varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
-kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id2885967" href="#ftn.id2885967" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886007"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886013"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886020"></a>
+kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id2782214" href="#ftn.id2782214" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2782254"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2782261"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2782267"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige</span>»</span>, var selskaper som Fox.
Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
-ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2886042" href="#ftn.id2886042" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
+ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2782290" href="#ftn.id2782290" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
til å flykte til østkysten. Californa var fjernt nok fra Edisons
innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
frykte loven. Og lederne blant Hollywods filmskapere, Fox mest
Musikkindustrien 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
886122"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
782370"></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
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
886151"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
782398"></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
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
886179"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
782426"></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="id2886214"></a>
+det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2782462"></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="id2886242" href="#ftn.id2886242" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
886266"></a><p>
+om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2782489" href="#ftn.id2782489" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
782514"></a><p>
Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, tallentet og geniet til amerikanske
-komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id2886283" href="#ftn.id2886283" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
+komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id2782531" href="#ftn.id2782531" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkpubliseringsindistrien</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i
-denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2886300" href="#ftn.id2886300" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
+denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2782547" href="#ftn.id2782547" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
Philip Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de
-tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2886317" href="#ftn.id2886317" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
+tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2782564" href="#ftn.id2782564" 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="id2886338" href="#ftn.id2886338" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
+of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id2782585" href="#ftn.id2782585" 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="id2886362" href="#ftn.id2886362" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2886374"></a>
+defined by statute.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2782609" href="#ftn.id2782609" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2782622"></a>
</p><p>
Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
betaling for den tillatelsen. Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed
bestemt av Grisham og opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2886444"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2782692"></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="id2885926" href="#ftn.id2885926" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886485"></a>
+follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id2782173" href="#ftn.id2782173" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2782733"></a>
</p><p>
Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen 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="id2886521" href="#ftn.id2886521" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
+choice.<sup>[<a name="id2782769" href="#ftn.id2782769" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id2886582" href="#ftn.id2886582" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id2782829" href="#ftn.id2782829" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
hans verk. Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
fremføringe.
komposisjonen fremført på radiostasjonen. Og hvis loven var fullstendig
konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
innspillingsartisten for hans verk, på samme måten som den betaler
-komponisten av musikken for hans verk. <a class="indexterm" name="id2886668"></a>
+komponisten av musikken for hans verk. <a class="indexterm" name="id2782916"></a>
</p><p>
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="id2
886742"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
782989"></a><p>
Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
på dette. I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg. Kanskje. Men selv om det er slik,
så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget. Ved å
gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
uten å betale.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
886766"></a></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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
783013"></a></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>
Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
noen gang gjorde—Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
mulig for andre å gi bort.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
886792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886798"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886823"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
783039"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2783046"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2783070"></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="id2886836" href="#ftn.id2886836" 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="id2783083" href="#ftn.id2783083" 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="id2886862" href="#ftn.id2886862" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
+property?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2783110" href="#ftn.id2783110" 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="id2886880" href="#ftn.id2886880" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
+for.<sup>[<a name="id2783127" href="#ftn.id2783127" 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="id2886908" href="#ftn.id2886908" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
886919"></a><p>
+ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2783155" href="#ftn.id2783155" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
783166"></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="id2886935" href="#ftn.id2886935" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
+skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2783182" href="#ftn.id2783182" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister
Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
opphavsrettsbeskyttelse. Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
utvide dette monopolet. … Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
-ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id2885793" href="#ftn.id2885793" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886993"></a>
+ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id2782040" href="#ftn.id2782040" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2783240"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
Disse separate historiene synger en felles melodi. Hvis
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke verdien fra noen andres
kreative eiendom uten tillatelse fra dets skaper—slik det stadig
-oftere beskrives i dag<sup>[<a name="id2886967" href="#ftn.id2886967" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> —da er
+oftere beskrives i dag<sup>[<a name="id2783215" href="#ftn.id2783215" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> —da er
<span class="emphasis"><em>enhver</em></span> industri påvirket av opphavsrett i dag produktet
og de som har nytt godt av ulike former for piratvirksomhet. Film, plater,
radio, kabel-TV. … Listen er lang og kunne vært lengre. Hver
generasjon ønsker piratene fra den forrige velkommen. Hver
generasjon—inntil nå.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885886" href="#id2885886" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782133" href="#id2782133" class="para">51</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="id2885902"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885967" href="#id2885967" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2782149"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782214" href="#id2782214" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
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. <a class="indexterm" name="id2885996"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886042" href="#id2886042" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
+No. 159. <a class="indexterm" name="id2782244"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782290" href="#id2782290" 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>, arkivert 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.id2886242" href="#id2886242" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782489" href="#id2782489" 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="id2886255"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886283" href="#id2886283" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
+Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="id2782502"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782531" href="#id2782531" 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.id2886300" href="#id2886300" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782547" href="#id2782547" 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.id2886317" href="#id2886317" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782564" href="#id2782564" 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.id2886338" href="#id2886338" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782585" href="#id2782585" 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.id2886362" href="#id2886362" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782609" href="#id2782609" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
innspill fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
Company Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885926" href="#id2885926" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782173" href="#id2782173" 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.id2886521" href="#id2886521" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782769" href="#id2782769" 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.id2886582" href="#id2886582" 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.id2782829" href="#id2782829" 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="id2886614"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886622"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886836" href="#id2886836" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
+70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="id2782861"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2782870"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783083" href="#id2783083" 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="id2886802"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886862" href="#id2886862" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
+H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission). <a class="indexterm" name="id2783050"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783110" href="#id2783110" 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.id2886880" href="#id2886880" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783127" href="#id2783127" 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.id2886908" href="#id2886908" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783155" href="#id2783155" 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.id2886935" href="#id2886935" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783182" href="#id2783182" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
-president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id2886913"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885793" href="#id2885793" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
+president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id2783160"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2782040" href="#id2782040" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id2886938"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886967" href="#id2886967" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
+fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id2783186"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783215" href="#id2783215" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">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. 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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
887134"></a><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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
783381"></a><p>
All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
copy it, and sell it—all without the permission of a copyright
owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
-every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2886971" href="#ftn.id2886971" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
+every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2783218" href="#ftn.id2783218" 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="id2887226" href="#ftn.id2887226" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
+intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2783474" href="#ftn.id2783474" 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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
887270"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
783517"></a><p>
Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
-otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2887284" href="#ftn.id2887284" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
+otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2783532" href="#ftn.id2783532" 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
technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
means.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
887372"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
783619"></a><p>
Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
Microsoft, Microsoft 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="id2887396"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2887402"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887408"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887420"></a>
+piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. <a class="indexterm" name="id2783643"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2783650"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2783656"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2783668"></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="id2887145"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887445"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2887465"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887472"></a>
+access, then violating the law is still wrong. <a class="indexterm" name="id2783393"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2783692"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2783713"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2783719"></a>
</p><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="id2887557" href="#ftn.id2887557" 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="id2783804" href="#ftn.id2783804" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
887575"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
783822"></a><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="id2887587" href="#ftn.id2887587" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
+Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2783835" href="#ftn.id2783835" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
crew had simply put together components that had been developed
-independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2887623"></a>
+independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2783871"></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="id2887636" href="#ftn.id2887636" 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="id2783884" href="#ftn.id2783884" 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="id2887686" href="#ftn.id2887686" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
+Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2783933" href="#ftn.id2783933" 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="id2887714" href="#ftn.id2887714" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
+May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2783961" href="#ftn.id2783961" 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="id2887774"></a>
+of purchasing. <a class="indexterm" name="id2784021"></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="id2887852" href="#ftn.id2887852" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
+economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2784099" href="#ftn.id2784099" 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="id2887905" href="#ftn.id2887905" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
+fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2784153" href="#ftn.id2784153" 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="id2887296" href="#ftn.id2887296" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
+stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2783543" href="#ftn.id2783543" 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="id2888011" href="#ftn.id2888011" 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="id2784258" href="#ftn.id2784258" 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="id2888061" href="#ftn.id2888061" 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="id2784308" href="#ftn.id2784308" 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="id2888098" href="#ftn.id2888098" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
+get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2784345" href="#ftn.id2784345" 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="id2888147" href="#ftn.id2888147" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
+are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2784394" href="#ftn.id2784394" 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="id2888188" href="#ftn.id2888188" 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="id2784436" href="#ftn.id2784436" 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
888238"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
784485"></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
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="id2888377" href="#ftn.id2888377" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
+zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2784624" href="#ftn.id2784624" 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
the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
less.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
888426"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
784673"></a><p>
So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
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
888490"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
784737"></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="id2888550" href="#ftn.id2888550" 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="id2784797" href="#ftn.id2784797" 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="id2888571" href="#ftn.id2888571" 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="id2888581" href="#ftn.id2888581" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
+basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2784818" href="#ftn.id2784818" 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="id2784828" href="#ftn.id2784828" 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="id2888610" href="#ftn.id2888610" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
+from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2784857" href="#ftn.id2784857" 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="id2888632" href="#ftn.id2888632" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2888656"></a>
+industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2784880" href="#ftn.id2784880" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2784903"></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="id2888682" href="#ftn.id2888682" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
+technology.<sup>[<a name="id2784929" href="#ftn.id2784929" 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">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</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="id2888814" href="#ftn.id2888814" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
+content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2785061" href="#ftn.id2785061" 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="id2888914" href="#ftn.id2888914" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
+possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2785162" href="#ftn.id2785162" 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="id2888974" href="#ftn.id2888974" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
+P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2785221" href="#ftn.id2785221" 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">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886971" href="#id2886971" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783218" href="#id2783218" 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.id2887226" href="#id2887226" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783474" href="#id2783474" 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="id2886344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887258"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887284" href="#id2887284" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
+framework. <a class="indexterm" name="id2782592"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2783505"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783532" href="#id2783532" 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="id2887302"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887557" href="#id2887557" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
+pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2783549"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783804" href="#id2783804" 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.id2887587" href="#id2887587" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783835" href="#id2783835" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2887590"></a> See Clayton M. Christensen,
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2783838"></a> See Clayton M. Christensen,
<em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller
That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies that give rise to and
creative, paradigm-shifting uses for their own products. This job usually
falls to outside innovators, who reassemble existing technology in inventive
ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig,
-<em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2887294"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887636" href="#id2887636" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2783541"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783884" href="#id2783884" 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.id2887686" href="#id2887686" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783933" href="#id2783933" 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.id2887714" href="#id2887714" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783961" href="#id2783961" 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.id2887852" href="#id2887852" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784099" href="#id2784099" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
-148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2887614"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887905" href="#id2887905" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2783862"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784153" href="#id2784153" 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.id2887296" href="#id2887296" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
+Office, October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2783543" href="#id2783543" 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.id2888011" href="#id2888011" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784258" href="#id2784258" 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.id2888061" href="#id2888061" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784308" href="#id2784308" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>»</span>, BusinessWeek online,
-13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2888077"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888098" href="#id2888098" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
+13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2784324"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784345" href="#id2784345" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888147" href="#id2888147" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784394" href="#id2784394" 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.id2888188" href="#id2888188" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784436" href="#id2784436" 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.id2888377" href="#id2888377" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784624" href="#id2784624" 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.id2888550" href="#id2888550" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784797" href="#id2784797" 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.id2888571" href="#id2888571" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784818" href="#id2784818" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888581" href="#id2888581" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784828" href="#id2784828" 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.id2888610" href="#id2888610" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784857" href="#id2784857" 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.id2888632" href="#id2888632" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784880" href="#id2784880" 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.id2888682" href="#id2888682" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784929" href="#id2784929" 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.id2888814" href="#id2888814" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785061" href="#id2785061" 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="id2888398"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2888853"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888914" href="#id2888914" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
+Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2784646"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2785100"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785162" href="#id2785162" 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.id2888974" href="#id2888974" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785221" href="#id2785221" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
-från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2889125" href="#ftn.id2889125" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
+från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2785372" href="#ftn.id2785372" 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
Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form—detaljene,
med andre ord—betyr noe. For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
-plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id2889167" href="#ftn.id2889167" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
+plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id2785414" href="#ftn.id2785414" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
foregående del. Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
utsagnet—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>— bli
litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889125" href="#id2889125" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785372" href="#id2785372" 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.id2889167" href="#id2889167" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785414" href="#id2785414" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
materielt. Se 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="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
889230"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889237"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
785478"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2785484"></a><p>
William Shakespeare skrev <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i
1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store
skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
-utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2889280" href="#ftn.id2889280" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
+utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2785528" href="#ftn.id2785528" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
-Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2889329" href="#ftn.id2889329" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
+Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2785576" href="#ftn.id2785576" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
-en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2889376" href="#ftn.id2889376" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
+en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2785623" href="#ftn.id2785623" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt
i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
1774?
lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
-at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker. <a class="indexterm" name="id2889429"></a>
+at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker. <a class="indexterm" name="id2785676"></a>
</p><p>
At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
fremføre, og så videre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
889610"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
785857"></a><p>
Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
889636"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889643"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
785883"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2785890"></a><p>
Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>»</span>,
spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>;
de var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
-nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2889741" href="#ftn.id2889741" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
+nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2785988" href="#ftn.id2785988" 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="id2889825" href="#ftn.id2889825" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2786072" href="#ftn.id2786072" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne … like
-bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2887951" href="#ftn.id2887951" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
+bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2784199" href="#ftn.id2784199" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
forfatterens verk ga.
</p><p>
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
-kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2889932" href="#ftn.id2889932" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2786179" href="#ftn.id2786179" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>. Han startet
in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
-Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2889959" href="#ftn.id2889959" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
+Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2786206" href="#ftn.id2786206" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
-skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2889989" href="#ftn.id2889989" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889997"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890004"></a>
+skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2786236" href="#ftn.id2786236" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2786244"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2786251"></a>
</p><p>
Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
-eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id2890024" href="#ftn.id2890024" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
+eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id2786271" href="#ftn.id2786271" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
Anne</span>»</span>, var falt i det fri.
Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
<em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
890063"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
786310"></a><p>
Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id2890092" href="#ftn.id2890092" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id2786339" href="#ftn.id2786339" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
890175"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
786422"></a><p>
Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
890192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
786440"></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="id2890206" href="#ftn.id2890206" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2786453" href="#ftn.id2786453" 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 født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
-frie. <a class="indexterm" name="id2890319"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890325"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890331"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890338"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890344"></a>
+frie. <a class="indexterm" name="id2786566"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2786572"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2786578"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2786585"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2786591"></a>
</p><p>
Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
-*illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2890378" href="#ftn.id2890378" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
+*illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2786625" href="#ftn.id2786625" 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="id2889901" href="#ftn.id2889901" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2786148" href="#ftn.id2786148" 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.id2889280" href="#id2889280" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785528" href="#id2785528" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2889283"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889292"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2785531"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2785540"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se 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.id2889329" href="#id2889329" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785576" href="#id2785576" 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.id2889376" href="#id2889376" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785623" href="#id2785623" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
-and Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2889388"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889741" href="#id2889741" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
+and Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2785635"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2785988" href="#id2785988" 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.id2889825" href="#id2889825" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786072" href="#id2786072" 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.id2887951" href="#id2887951" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2784199" href="#id2784199" 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 en
fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2889339"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889932" href="#id2889932" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2785586"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786179" href="#id2786179" 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.id2889959" href="#id2889959" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786206" href="#id2786206" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
-University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id2889966"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889989" href="#id2889989" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
+University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id2786213"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786236" href="#id2786236" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890024" href="#id2890024" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786271" href="#id2786271" 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.id2890092" href="#id2890092" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786339" href="#id2786339" 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.id2890206" href="#id2890206" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786453" href="#id2786453" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890378" href="#id2890378" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786625" href="#id2786625" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889901" href="#id2889901" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2786148" href="#id2786148" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
ibid.
*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="id2890532"></a>
+scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2786779"></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="id2890596"></a>
+programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2786843"></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="id2890616"></a>
+sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2786863"></a>
</p><p>
Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi …
at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk — ihvertfall at noen [hos
Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
sekundene med … fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2786890"></a><p>
Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her … Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
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="id2890713"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890720"></a>
+Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2786967"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2786973"></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
loven.
</p><p>
Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
-første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2890785" href="#ftn.id2890785" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
+første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2787039" href="#ftn.id2787039" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>— og
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>, og å påstå
at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
890895"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787148"></a><p>
Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
(ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
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.id2890785" href="#id2890785" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787039" href="#id2787039" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
A. Posner og 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> (utkast arkivert hos
forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891020"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891039"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787273"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787292"></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
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="id2891137" href="#ftn.id2891137" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
+it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2787391" href="#ftn.id2787391" 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
891210"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787464"></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
And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
and it sold very well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891292"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787545"></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="id2891307" href="#ftn.id2891307" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
+all.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2787561" href="#ftn.id2787561" 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
the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891404"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787657"></a><p>
These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat
for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of
these rights, and the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost
sense; but as circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least,
a well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights
and ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891429"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787682"></a><p>
I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
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
891464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787717"></a><p>
Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891490"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891496"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787743"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787749"></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,
that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created—in a
second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
can have it planted in your presentation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891525"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
787778"></a><p>
But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
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.id2891137" href="#id2891137" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787391" href="#id2787391" 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="id2891149"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2891164"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891307" href="#id2891307" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
+creativity, as this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2787403"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2787417"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787561" href="#id2787561" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library—constantly
updated, without any reliable memory.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
788030"></a><p>
Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
-forget.<sup>[<a name="id2891800" href="#ftn.id2891800" 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
-hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
-water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
-newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
-exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
-and remember—not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
-something close to the truth.
+forget.<sup>[<a name="id2788054" href="#ftn.id2788054" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2788087"></a><p>
+<span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can go
+back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted
+to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts
+in 1965, or to Bull Connor's water cannon in 1963, you could go to your
+public library and look at the newspapers. Those papers probably exist on
+microfiche. If you're lucky, they exist in paper, too. Either way, you are
+free, using a library, to go back and remember—not just what it is
+convenient to remember, but remember something close to the truth.
</p><p>
It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
was growing at about a billion pages a month.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
891867"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
788132"></a><p>
The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
of material</span>»</span>—and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
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
891928"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
788193"></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="id2891984" href="#ftn.id2891984" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
+film company.<sup>[<a name="id2788249" href="#ftn.id2788249" 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,
world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
of September 11 available free on-line. Anyone could see how news reports
from around the world covered the events of that day.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
892041"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892047"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
788306"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2788312"></a><p>
Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
(meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
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="id2892138" href="#ftn.id2892138" 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="id2788403" href="#ftn.id2788403" 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
before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
describes,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
892219"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
788484"></a><p>
It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
… and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span>
And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
exercise.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892293"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891800" href="#id2891800" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2788558"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788054" href="#id2788054" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2891803"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2891812"></a> The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2788057"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2788066"></a> The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the
White House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span>
That was later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in
Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891984" href="#id2891984" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788249" href="#id2788249" 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.id2892138" href="#id2892138" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788403" href="#id2788403" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
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="id2892265"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892333"></a>
+Washington. <a class="indexterm" name="id2788530"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2788598"></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="id2892352"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892359"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2892365"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892371"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892377"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892384"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892390"></a>
+Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. <a class="indexterm" name="id2788617"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2788623"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2788630"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2788636"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2788642"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2788648"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2788655"></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="id2892459" href="#ftn.id2892459" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
+debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2788713" href="#ftn.id2788713" 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="id2892528" href="#ftn.id2892528" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
+understand,<sup>[<a name="id2788782" href="#ftn.id2788782" 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
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="id2892406"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
892809"></a><p>
+by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id2788670"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789052"></a><p>
Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
892830"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789073"></a><p>
The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms—it is
it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
892838"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789081"></a><p>
Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>—the physical world as one finds
it—is a constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your
comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
regulator (whether controlling or freeing) must consider how these four in
particular interact.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
892913"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892926"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789157"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789163"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789169"></a><p>
So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a
high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
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="id2892960" href="#ftn.id2892960" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
+in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2789203" href="#ftn.id2789203" 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
892984"></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"><a class="indexterm" name="id2893020"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789227"></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"><a class="indexterm" name="id2789263"></a><p>
These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
-modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2893035" href="#ftn.id2893035" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
+modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2789278" href="#ftn.id2789278" 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
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 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"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
893153"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893159"></a><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"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789396"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789403"></a><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
(3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
893236"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789480"></a><p>
This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to
preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
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
893275"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893281"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789519"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789524"></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="id2893296" href="#ftn.id2893296" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
+cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2789540" href="#ftn.id2789540" 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
market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
893345"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893351"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789588"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789594"></a><p>
The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no. In a free
society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
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="id2893371" href="#ftn.id2893371" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
+competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2789614" href="#ftn.id2789614" 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
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="id2893471"></a>
+increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id2789723"></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
893488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893495"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789740"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789747"></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
worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
solve.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
893527"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
789779"></a><p>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
-culture.<sup>[<a name="id2893543" href="#ftn.id2893543" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
+culture.<sup>[<a name="id2789795" href="#ftn.id2789795" 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
893603"></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
789855"></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
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="id2893784" href="#ftn.id2893784" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
+rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2790036" href="#ftn.id2790036" 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="id2893852" href="#ftn.id2893852" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
+14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2790104" href="#ftn.id2790104" 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="id2893919" href="#ftn.id2893919" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
+work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2790171" href="#ftn.id2790171" 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="id2893954" href="#ftn.id2893954" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
+print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2790206" href="#ftn.id2790206" 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="id2894056" href="#ftn.id2894056" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
+the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2790314" href="#ftn.id2790314" 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
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="id2894210" href="#ftn.id2894210" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
+United States.<sup>[<a name="id2790467" href="#ftn.id2790467" 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="id2894297" href="#ftn.id2894297" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
+protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2790562" href="#ftn.id2790562" 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="id2894345" href="#ftn.id2894345" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
+book.<sup>[<a name="id2790610" href="#ftn.id2790610" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
creative work are treated the same.
</p><p>
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
-and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2894411" href="#ftn.id2894411" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
+and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2790676" href="#ftn.id2790676" 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="id2894490" href="#ftn.id2894490" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
+copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2790755" href="#ftn.id2790755" 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.
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="id2894420" href="#ftn.id2894420" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
+copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2790686" href="#ftn.id2790686" 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
permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
Disney's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
894895"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
791152"></a><p>
Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
894922"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
791180"></a><p>
No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
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
895015"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
791272"></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="id2895062" href="#ftn.id2895062" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
+juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2791320" href="#ftn.id2791320" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt. De advarte
Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
-det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2895089" href="#ftn.id2895089" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
+det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2791347" href="#ftn.id2791347" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
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
895147"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895156"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
791405"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2791413"></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
computer.
</p><p>
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
-Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895280"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895286"></a>
+Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id2791538"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2791544"></a>
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></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.
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="id2895370" href="#ftn.id2895370" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
+power.<sup>[<a name="id2791628" href="#ftn.id2791628" 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="id2895444"></a>
+the sentence. <a class="indexterm" name="id2791701"></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="id2895494"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2791751"></a>
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alice i Eventyrland</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></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
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
895568"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
791826"></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>
teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2791920"></a><p>
If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
<em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
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
895707"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895715"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895723"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
791971"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2791979"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2791987"></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="id2895768" href="#ftn.id2895768" 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="id2792032" href="#ftn.id2792032" 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
895952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895968"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
792216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792232"></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
896049"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896062"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
792313"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792319"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792326"></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
896099"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
792363"></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="id2896121"></a>
+Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="id2792385"></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="id2896161" href="#ftn.id2896161" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
+important.<sup>[<a name="id2792425" href="#ftn.id2792425" 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="id2896202"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2792466"></a>
</p><p>
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
</p><p>
copyrighted material—a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
use—a good end.
-</p><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxhandguns"></a><p>
A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
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 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"><a class="indexterm" name="id2792524"></a><p>
The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
-guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do. <a class="indexterm" name="id2896260"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896268"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896274"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896280"></a><p>
+guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
792544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792558"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792565"></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="id2896355" href="#ftn.id2896355" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
+continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2792629" href="#ftn.id2792629" 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
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="id2896478" href="#ftn.id2896478" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
+sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2792743" href="#ftn.id2792743" 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="id2896490" href="#ftn.id2896490" 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="id2792755" href="#ftn.id2792755" 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="id2896508" href="#ftn.id2896508" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896521"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896527"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2896533"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896539"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896546"></a>
+nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2792773" href="#ftn.id2792773" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792785"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792792"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2792798"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792804"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792810"></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="id2896577"></a>
+article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2792842"></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="id2896602" href="#ftn.id2896602" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
+system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2792867" href="#ftn.id2792867" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
</p><p>
Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
er viktig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896684"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896690"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896697"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
792959"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792966"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792972"></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="id2896729" href="#ftn.id2896729" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
+nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2793004" href="#ftn.id2793004" 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="id2896792" href="#ftn.id2896792" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
+one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2793067" href="#ftn.id2793067" 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="id2896820" href="#ftn.id2896820" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896827"></a><p>
+studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2793094" href="#ftn.id2793094" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
793102"></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="id2896851"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896857"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2793125"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793132"></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="id2896876" href="#ftn.id2896876" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
+you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2793150" href="#ftn.id2793150" 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
896903"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
793177"></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="id2896934" href="#ftn.id2896934" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
+trends.<sup>[<a name="id2793208" href="#ftn.id2793208" 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="id2896965"></a>
+there will be far too little sprinting. <a class="indexterm" name="id2793240"></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="id2897087" href="#ftn.id2897087" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
+defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2793362" href="#ftn.id2793362" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
896999"></a></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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
793273"></a></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="id2897337" href="#ftn.id2897337" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
+known.<sup>[<a name="id2793606" href="#ftn.id2793606" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
</p><p>
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="id2897693" href="#ftn.id2897693" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>) has been crafted to balance
+rights<sup>[<a name="id2793967" href="#ftn.id2793967" 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
all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
897733"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
794007"></a><p>
We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
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.id2892459" href="#id2892459" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788713" href="#id2788713" 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.id2892528" href="#id2892528" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788782" href="#id2788782" 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.id2892960" href="#id2892960" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789203" href="#id2789203" 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.id2893035" href="#id2893035" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789278" href="#id2789278" 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="id2893089"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2893098"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2893104"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2893111"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893296" href="#id2893296" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
+the effective liberty that each of these groups might face. <a class="indexterm" name="id2789332"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2789341"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2789347"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2789354"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789540" href="#id2789540" 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.id2893371" href="#id2893371" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789614" href="#id2789614" 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.id2893543" href="#id2893543" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789795" href="#id2789795" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
Se for eksempel 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.id2893784" href="#id2893784" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790036" href="#id2790036" 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="id2893802"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893852" href="#id2893852" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
+(emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2790054"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790104" href="#id2790104" 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.id2893919" href="#id2893919" 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.id2790171" href="#id2790171" 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.id2893954" href="#id2893954" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
+498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790206" href="#id2790206" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894056" href="#id2894056" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790314" href="#id2790314" 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.id2894210" href="#id2894210" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790467" href="#id2790467" 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.id2894297" href="#id2894297" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790562" href="#id2790562" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
-Affairs</em>, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2894326"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894345" href="#id2894345" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
+Affairs</em>, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2790591"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790610" href="#id2790610" 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="id2894363"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894411" href="#id2894411" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
+(2002): 1–60 (see especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id2790628"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790676" href="#id2790676" 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.id2894490" href="#id2894490" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790755" href="#id2790755" 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.id2894420" href="#id2894420" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790686" href="#id2790686" 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.id2895062" href="#id2895062" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791320" href="#id2791320" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
Se 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.id2895089" href="#id2895089" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791347" href="#id2791347" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2895077"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895370" href="#id2895370" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
+Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2791334"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791628" href="#id2791628" 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.id2895768" href="#id2895768" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792032" href="#id2792032" 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="id2895824"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896161" href="#id2896161" 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="id2792088"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792425" href="#id2792425" 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="id2895097"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896355" href="#id2896355" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
+(New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71. <a class="indexterm" name="id2791354"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792629" href="#id2792629" 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.id2896478" href="#id2896478" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792743" href="#id2792743" 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.id2896490" href="#id2896490" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
+of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792755" href="#id2792755" 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.id2896508" href="#id2896508" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792773" href="#id2792773" 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.id2896602" href="#id2896602" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792867" href="#id2792867" 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="id2896621"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896729" href="#id2896729" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
+Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2792896"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793004" href="#id2793004" 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.id2896792" href="#id2896792" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793067" href="#id2793067" 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.id2896820" href="#id2896820" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793094" href="#id2793094" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896876" href="#id2896876" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793150" href="#id2793150" 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, redigert avskrift
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#31</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896934" href="#id2896934" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793208" href="#id2793208" 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.id2897087" href="#id2897087" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
+2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793362" href="#id2793362" 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="id2897157"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897165"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2897171"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897178"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897184"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897190"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897196"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897337" href="#id2897337" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
+the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793425"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793434"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2793440"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793446"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793452"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793459"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793465"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793606" href="#id2793606" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire
kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
-Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. <a class="indexterm" name="id2897128"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897693" href="#id2897693" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
+Vaidhyanathan, 159–60. <a class="indexterm" name="id2793397"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793967" href="#id2793967" 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="id2897708"></a>
+1980). <a class="indexterm" name="id2793982"></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 elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
-the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2897854" href="#ftn.id2897854" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
+the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2794128" href="#ftn.id2794128" 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
898009"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
794283"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2794290"></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="id2898100"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2794374"></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="id2898141" href="#ftn.id2898141" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
+been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2794414" href="#ftn.id2794414" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898247"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
794521"></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="id2898336" href="#ftn.id2898336" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
+everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2794618" href="#ftn.id2794618" 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="id2898368"></a>
+changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2794644"></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.id2897854" href="#id2897854" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794128" href="#id2794128" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
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.id2898141" href="#id2898141" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794414" href="#id2794414" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2898144"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2794418"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers
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="id2898233"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898239"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898336" href="#id2898336" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
+#36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2794506"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2794512"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794618" href="#id2794618" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
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
898430"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898436"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
794705"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2794711"></a><p>
Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898455"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
794731"></a><p>
There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
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="id2898558" href="#ftn.id2898558" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
+$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2794834" href="#ftn.id2794834" 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="id2898597" href="#ftn.id2898597" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
+damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2794872" href="#ftn.id2794872" 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="id2898640"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898648"></a><p>
+negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2794916"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
794923"></a><p>
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
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="id2898676" href="#ftn.id2898676" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
+art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2794946" href="#ftn.id2794946" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898711"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
794992"></a><p>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="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
who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898739"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795020"></a><p>
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span> every place I've spoken of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
affecting culture are more fundamental.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
898883"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795164"></a><p>
The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary—at a minimum, we
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
898892"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795173"></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="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
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
898947"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795228"></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="id2898971"></a>
+so on. <a class="indexterm" name="id2795252"></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
899074"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2899083"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2899089"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2899095"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795356"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2795364"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2795370"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2795376"></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="id2899108" href="#ftn.id2899108" 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="id2795389" href="#ftn.id2795389" 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="id2899156"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899162"></a>
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899172"></a><p>
+Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2795437"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2795443"></a>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795453"></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="id2898840" href="#ftn.id2898840" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
+sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <sup>[<a name="id2795121" href="#ftn.id2795121" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Dette er verden til mafiaen—fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
and much less creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899269"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795539"></a><p>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then, this
response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899338"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795609"></a><p>
The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
-or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2899352" href="#ftn.id2899352" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
+or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2795622" href="#ftn.id2795622" 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="id2899381" href="#ftn.id2899381" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
+down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2795651" href="#ftn.id2795651" 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="id2899404" href="#ftn.id2899404" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
+impose.<sup>[<a name="id2795675" href="#ftn.id2795675" 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="id2899417"></a>
+protection should not do more harm than good. <a class="indexterm" name="id2795688"></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
</p><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="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="id2899452" href="#ftn.id2899452" 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="id2795723" href="#ftn.id2795723" 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="id2899488" href="#ftn.id2899488" 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="id2795758" href="#ftn.id2795758" 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="id2899523" href="#ftn.id2899523" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
+here.<sup>[<a name="id2795793" href="#ftn.id2795793" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795854"></a><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
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="id2899631"></a>
+Marilyn Monroe would not. <a class="indexterm" name="id2795893"></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
stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899682"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
795945"></a><p>
broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
-shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2899187" href="#ftn.id2899187" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
+shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2795468" href="#ftn.id2795468" 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="id2899742" href="#ftn.id2899742" 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="id2795998" href="#ftn.id2795998" 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="id2899806" href="#ftn.id2899806" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
+year.<sup>[<a name="id2796062" href="#ftn.id2796062" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
899867"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
796118"></a><p>
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
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
900042"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
796293"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></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,
Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
900083"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
796327"></a><p>
And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis added.)
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
900117"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
796367"></a><p>
Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
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="id2900169" href="#ftn.id2900169" 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="id2796419" href="#ftn.id2796419" 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="id2899796" href="#ftn.id2899796" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
+file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2796052" href="#ftn.id2796052" 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="id2900250" href="#ftn.id2900250" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
+were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2796500" href="#ftn.id2796500" 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="id2900267" href="#ftn.id2900267" 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="id2796517" href="#ftn.id2796517" 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="id2900284" href="#ftn.id2900284" 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="id2796534" href="#ftn.id2796534" 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="id2900305"></a>
+regularly violate at least some law. <a class="indexterm" name="id2796555"></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="id2900324"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2796574"></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
900461"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
796701"></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
why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
important as our tradition of free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
900576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
796808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There's one</strong></span> more aspect to this
corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier Foundation
civil liberties generally.
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
-von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2900625"></a>
+von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2796856"></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="id2900682" href="#ftn.id2900682" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
+these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2796914" href="#ftn.id2796914" 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="id2900738" href="#ftn.id2900738" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
+to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2796970" href="#ftn.id2796970" 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="id2900782" href="#ftn.id2900782" 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="id2797014" href="#ftn.id2797014" 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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
900855"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
797086"></a><p>
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
<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="id2900878"></a>
+Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2797110"></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.id2898558" href="#id2898558" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794834" href="#id2794834" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2898584"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898597" href="#id2898597" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
+#37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2794860"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794872" href="#id2794872" 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="id2898628"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898676" href="#id2898676" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
+months. <a class="indexterm" name="id2794903"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794946" href="#id2794946" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For en oversikt over
utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#41</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899108" href="#id2899108" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795389" href="#id2795389" 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.id2898840" href="#id2898840" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795121" href="#id2795121" 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. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad
-Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2899207"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899352" href="#id2899352" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
+Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2795488"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795622" href="#id2795622" 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.id2899381" href="#id2899381" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795651" href="#id2795651" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899404" href="#id2899404" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795675" href="#id2795675" 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.id2899452" href="#id2899452" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795723" href="#id2795723" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
-Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id2899460"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899488" href="#id2899488" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
+Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id2795730"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795758" href="#id2795758" 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.id2899523" href="#id2899523" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795793" href="#id2795793" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2899526"></a> For example, in July 2002,
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2795796"></a> For example, in July 2002,
Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention
Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for
damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop
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="id2899569"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899575"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2899581"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899187" href="#id2899187" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
+2003, 33–34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2795831"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2795838"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2795844"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795468" href="#id2795468" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899742" href="#id2899742" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795998" href="#id2795998" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899806" href="#id2899806" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796062" href="#id2796062" 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="id2899848"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2899857"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900169" href="#id2900169" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
+media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2796098"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2796108"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796419" href="#id2796419" 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.id2899796" href="#id2899796" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796052" href="#id2796052" 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.id2900250" href="#id2900250" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796500" href="#id2796500" 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.id2900267" href="#id2900267" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796517" href="#id2796517" 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.id2900284" href="#id2900284" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796534" href="#id2796534" 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.id2900682" href="#id2900682" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796914" href="#id2796914" 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.id2900738" href="#id2900738" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796970" href="#id2796970" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900782" href="#id2900782" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797014" href="#id2797014" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
(<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
901129"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
797361"></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="id2901152" href="#ftn.id2901152" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
+groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2797383" href="#ftn.id2797383" 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
copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
901191"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2901207"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
797423"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2797439"></a><p>
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
-forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2901221" href="#ftn.id2901221" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
+forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2797452" href="#ftn.id2797452" 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="id2901333"></a>
+Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2797564"></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="id2901527" href="#ftn.id2901527" 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="id2797767" href="#ftn.id2797767" 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="id2901544" href="#ftn.id2901544" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
-reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2901563" href="#ftn.id2901563" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
+than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2797784" href="#ftn.id2797784" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
+reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2797803" href="#ftn.id2797803" 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
901641"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
797881"></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="id2901675" href="#ftn.id2901675" 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="id2797915" href="#ftn.id2797915" 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="id2901702" href="#ftn.id2901702" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
+v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2797942" href="#ftn.id2797942" 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="id2901722" href="#ftn.id2901722" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2797962" href="#ftn.id2797962" 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="id2901812" href="#ftn.id2901812" 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="id2798052" href="#ftn.id2798052" 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="id2901838"></a>
+pirate's charter. <a class="indexterm" name="id2798078"></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="id2901882" href="#ftn.id2901882" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
+generally.<sup>[<a name="id2798122" href="#ftn.id2798122" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
have to do?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
901909"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
798149"></a><p>
Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
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="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
902041"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902047"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
798270"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2798276"></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="id2902071" href="#ftn.id2902071" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902094"></a>
+films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2798300" href="#ftn.id2798300" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2798323"></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="id2902131" href="#ftn.id2902131" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
+cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2798360" href="#ftn.id2798360" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
expires.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
902208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
798437"></a><p>
But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
not—then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
work for us.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
902396"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
798625"></a><p>
I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
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="id2902422" href="#ftn.id2902422" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
+value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2798651" href="#ftn.id2798651" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
902501"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
798729"></a><p>
The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc. This
time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
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
902566"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
798786"></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
902589"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902595"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902601"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
798809"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2798815"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2798821"></a><p>
Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
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="id2902722"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902728"></a>
+Schlafly argued. <a class="indexterm" name="id2798954"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2798960"></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="id2902757"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902766"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902772"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902778"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2798989"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2798998"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2799004"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2799010"></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="id2902792"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902799"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
902806"></a><p>
+National Writers Union. <a class="indexterm" name="id2799024"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2799031"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799038"></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
902821"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902827"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902833"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902839"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902846"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799053"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2799059"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2799065"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2799071"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2799078"></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="id2902881"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902890"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902896"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902902"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2799113"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2799122"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2799128"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2799134"></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="id2902923"></a>
+the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. <a class="indexterm" name="id2799155"></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="id2902962" href="#ftn.id2902962" 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="id2799194" href="#ftn.id2799194" 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="id2902987" href="#ftn.id2902987" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
+cast.<sup>[<a name="id2799219" href="#ftn.id2799219" 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="id2903004"></a>
+help them effect that control. <a class="indexterm" name="id2799236"></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
903038"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2903054"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799265"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2799281"></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
903081"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799308"></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
903115"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799342"></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
903241"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2903247"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799476"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2799482"></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="id2903260"></a>
+of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2799495"></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
903273"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799508"></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
intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
powers had any limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
903331"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799566"></a><p>
Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening. The history
was bothering her.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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
903409"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799649"></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
public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
903457"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799697"></a><p>
Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
General Olson,
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
903605"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799851"></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
903624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799870"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
depression. This anger was of two sorts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
903682"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799928"></a><p>
It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have
been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
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
903744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
799989"></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
903786"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
800031"></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="id2903797"></a>
+Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2800042"></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="id2903831"></a>
+issue should not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2800076"></a>
</p><p>
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
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="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="id2903893"></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="id2
903914"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2800138"></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="id2
800159"></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.id2901152" href="#id2901152" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797383" href="#id2797383" 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.id2901221" href="#id2901221" 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.id2797452" href="#id2797452" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2901226"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901234"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2797458"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2797466"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901527" href="#id2901527" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797767" href="#id2797767" 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. oktober 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901544" href="#id2901544" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797784" href="#id2797784" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901563" href="#id2901563" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797803" href="#id2797803" 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,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#50</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901675" href="#id2901675" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797915" href="#id2797915" 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.id2901702" href="#id2901702" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797942" href="#id2797942" 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.id2901722" href="#id2901722" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797962" href="#id2797962" 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.id2901812" href="#id2901812" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2798052" href="#id2798052" 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.id2901882" href="#id2901882" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2798122" href="#id2798122" 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.id2902071" href="#id2902071" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2798300" href="#id2798300" 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.id2902131" href="#id2902131" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2798360" href="#id2798360" 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.id2902422" href="#id2902422" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2798651" href="#id2798651" 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, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902962" href="#id2902962" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2799194" href="#id2799194" 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.id2902987" href="#id2902987" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2799219" href="#id2799219" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
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
903965"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
800211"></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
904031"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
800277"></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
904064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2904071"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
800310"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2800317"></a><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="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="id2904089" href="#ftn.id2904089" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
+before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2800335" href="#ftn.id2800335" 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
904156"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
800397"></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="id2904268"></a>
+take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id2800502"></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
904361"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
800595"></a><p>
Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi er nære</span>»</span>. Det
oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
-her. <a class="indexterm" name="id2904398"></a>
+her. <a class="indexterm" name="id2800632"></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
favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
resistance.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
904503"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
800737"></a><p>
But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
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
904574"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2904580"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
800808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2800814"></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.id2904089" href="#id2904089" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2800335" href="#id2800335" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
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="id2904704" href="#ftn.id2904704" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
+utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2800938" href="#ftn.id2800938" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
fra India. Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
-europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id2904795" href="#ftn.id2904795" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
+europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id2801030" href="#ftn.id2801030" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika … til å ikke tillate
-tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2901302" href="#ftn.id2901302" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
+tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2797534" href="#ftn.id2797534" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
(USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven—og for å legge
press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner. Samme år gikk mer enn førti
patenter. Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
-Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2904865" href="#ftn.id2904865" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
+Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2801099" href="#ftn.id2801099" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng. Det er ingen tvil om at
patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
</p><p>
I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
-eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2904959" href="#ftn.id2904959" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
+eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2801193" href="#ftn.id2801193" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om
viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
905109"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905187"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905195"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
801343"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2801421"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2801429"></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
rår. Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
til. Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
905269"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
801503"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2801522"></a><p>
I august 2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual
-Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id2905300" href="#ftn.id2905300" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
+Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id2801534" href="#ftn.id2801534" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende
prosjekter for å skape goder for felleskapet</span>»</span>. Disse prosjektene som
hadde lyktes i å produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg
Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis,
Pfizer, og Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald
Reagen frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet. Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen
-kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2905394"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2905403"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2905409"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
905417"></a><p>
+kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2801628"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2801637"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2801643"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
801651"></a><p>
Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
</p><p>
Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
-ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2905442" href="#ftn.id2905442" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2801676" href="#ftn.id2801676" 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
biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>—og IBM er helt klart en
kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører. Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
-å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2905584" href="#ftn.id2905584" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2905643"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2905649"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2905657"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2905664"></a>
+å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2801818" href="#ftn.id2801818" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2801877"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2801883"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2801891"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2801898"></a>
</p><p>
Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
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="id2905737" href="#ftn.id2905737" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
-møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id2905755"></a>
+slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2801971" href="#ftn.id2801971" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
+møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id2801989"></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
så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet. Det er heller
tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span>
-eiendom. <a class="indexterm" name="id2905895"></a>
+eiendom. <a class="indexterm" name="id2802129"></a>
</p><p>
Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som har som sitt
og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet. Føydalismen var
avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon. Det sloss mot enhver frihet
som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
905954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
802188"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802194"></a><p>
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
-vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2905972" href="#ftn.id2905972" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
+vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2802206" href="#ftn.id2802206" 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
906130"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906138"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906144"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
802364"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802372"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802378"></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
</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
906264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
802498"></a><p>
Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
-at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2906277" href="#ftn.id2906277" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span>
-noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2906341" href="#ftn.id2906341" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om
+at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2802511" href="#ftn.id2802511" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span>
+noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2802575" href="#ftn.id2802575" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om
hvordan Bob Dylan har <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har
-nettopp gått verden over.<sup>[<a name="id2906364" href="#ftn.id2906364" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på
+nettopp gått verden over.<sup>[<a name="id2802598" href="#ftn.id2802598" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på
innsiden i Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli
anonym—rapporterer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.
De har fantastisk [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan
Kongressrepresentanter snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta
ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven. Universiteter truer med å utvise
ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
906410"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906422"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906429"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906435"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906441"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
802644"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802650"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802663"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802669"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802675"></a><p>
I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
bygge opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
-ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2906460" href="#ftn.id2906460" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
+ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2802694" href="#ftn.id2802694" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
-landet.<sup>[<a name="id2906483" href="#ftn.id2906483" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk
+landet.<sup>[<a name="id2802717" href="#ftn.id2802717" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk
historie. Sannheten er mer blandet. En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904704" href="#id2904704" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2800938" href="#id2800938" 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>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
utviklingsland dem de trenger—og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904795" href="#id2904795" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801030" href="#id2801030" 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="id2904805"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2904814"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901302" href="#id2901302" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
+37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2801039"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2801048"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797534" href="#id2797534" 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.id2904865" href="#id2904865" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801099" href="#id2801099" 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.id2904959" href="#id2904959" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801193" href="#id2801193" 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.id2905300" href="#id2905300" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801534" href="#id2801534" 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, tilgjengelig fra
#60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
at WIPO</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905442" href="#id2905442" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801676" href="#id2801676" 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.id2905584" href="#id2905584" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801818" href="#id2801818" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905737" href="#id2905737" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801971" href="#id2801971" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905972" href="#id2905972" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802206" href="#id2802206" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
-210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2904859"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906277" href="#id2906277" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2801093"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802511" href="#id2802511" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
<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, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906341" href="#id2906341" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802575" href="#id2802575" 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, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906364" href="#id2906364" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802598" href="#id2802598" 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. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906460" href="#id2906460" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802694" href="#id2802694" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public</span>»</span>, pressemelding
fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906483" href="#id2906483" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802717" href="#id2802717" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil</span>»</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
(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
906754"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
802988"></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="id2906777"></a>
+protected by the friction disappears, too. <a class="indexterm" name="id2803011"></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="id2906810" href="#ftn.id2906810" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
+for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2803044" href="#ftn.id2803044" 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="id2906852"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
906863"></a><p>
+about controlling their software. <a class="indexterm" name="id2803086"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
803097"></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
free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
share software would be fundamentally weakened.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
906920"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
803154"></a><p>
Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
overleve. Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
-produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2906942"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2906948"></a>
+produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2803176"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2803182"></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="id2907092"></a>
+inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2803305"></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
907102"></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
803316"></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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
907151"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
803365"></a><p>
Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
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="id2907247"></a>
+domain to other creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id2803470"></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="id2907322"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2907331"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
907338"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2907344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2907351"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2803546"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2803555"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
803562"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2803568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2803575"></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="id2907383" href="#ftn.id2907383" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
+are so high<sup>[<a name="id2803607" href="#ftn.id2803607" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
their form of creativity might grow.
</p><p>
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
907457"></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
803681"></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
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="id2907575" href="#ftn.id2907575" 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="id2803788" href="#ftn.id2803788" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
</p><p>
not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
-permission.<sup>[<a name="id2907711" href="#ftn.id2907711" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
+permission.<sup>[<a name="id2803912" href="#ftn.id2803912" 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
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="id2907844" href="#ftn.id2907844" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
+fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2804040" href="#ftn.id2804040" 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="id2907965" href="#ftn.id2907965" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
+for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2804153" href="#ftn.id2804153" 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="id2907986"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2804172"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det
være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
president?
-</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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
908069"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2908076"></a><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><a class="indexterm" name="id2
804250"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804256"></a><p>
As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property 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="id2908127" href="#ftn.id2908127" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
+dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2804305" href="#ftn.id2804305" 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="id2908143"></a>
+Benjamin Kaplan. <a class="indexterm" name="id2804320"></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="id2908159" href="#ftn.id2908159" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
+abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2804336" href="#ftn.id2804336" 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="id2908191"></a>
+after the creative work is done. <a class="indexterm" name="id2804366"></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
about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
908223"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
804396"></a><p>
This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
derivative rights—turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
</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="id2908246" href="#ftn.id2908246" 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="id2804419" href="#ftn.id2804419" 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
desert or the Rockies—you can instantaneously be connected to the
Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
908468"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
804620"></a><p>
In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
you access to content on the fly—such as Internet radio, content that
is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
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="id2908510" href="#ftn.id2908510" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
+Web.<sup>[<a name="id2804676" href="#ftn.id2804676" 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="id2908704" href="#ftn.id2908704" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
+Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2804860" href="#ftn.id2804860" 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
monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
908904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
805060"></a><p>
Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
<em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
old system of controlling access.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
908932"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
805099"></a><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
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
908956"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
805124"></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
countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
on-line.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
908994"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
805162"></a><p>
This competition has already occurred against the background of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
vernetid var galskap. Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
-åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2909232" href="#ftn.id2909232" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
+åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2805398" href="#ftn.id2805398" 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="id2909270" href="#ftn.id2909270" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
+lav.<sup>[<a name="id2805437" href="#ftn.id2805437" 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>
Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade. Og det er nettopp det loven
altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
909372"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
805538"></a><p>
Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
teknologi—filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
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.id2906810" href="#id2906810" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2803044" href="#id2803044" 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.id2907383" href="#id2907383" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
+technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2803607" href="#id2803607" 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.id2907575" href="#id2907575" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2803788" href="#id2803788" 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.id2907711" href="#id2907711" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
+by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2803912" href="#id2803912" 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.id2907844" href="#id2907844" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804040" href="#id2804040" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
(25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907965" href="#id2907965" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804153" href="#id2804153" 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.id2908127" href="#id2908127" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804305" href="#id2804305" 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.id2908159" href="#id2908159" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804336" href="#id2804336" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908246" href="#id2908246" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804419" href="#id2804419" 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="id2906825"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908510" href="#id2908510" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
+187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="id2803059"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804676" href="#id2804676" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch</span>»</span>, The J@pan
Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908704" href="#id2908704" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804860" href="#id2804860" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
<a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
enn mindre populære. Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
-forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2908861"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2908868"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2908875"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2908882"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909232" href="#id2909232" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
+forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2805017"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2805024"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2805031"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2805038"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2805398" href="#id2805398" 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.id2909270" href="#id2909270" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2805437" href="#id2805437" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
fildelingsteknologi. Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
til det juridiske system. Se, for eksempel,
-<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76. <a class="indexterm" name="id2909247"></a>
+<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76. <a class="indexterm" name="id2805413"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>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
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
909518"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
805687"></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
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="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
909651"></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>, <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="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</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>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internett-arkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <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="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</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>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</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="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></dd><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="#id2881381">«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>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</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>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</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>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">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><dt>Jonson, Ben, <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><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><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>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</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><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«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>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedskonsentrasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</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>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></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>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</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><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</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="#id2881381">«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>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</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>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</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>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>veteranpensjoner, <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>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>
+</p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
805818"></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>, <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="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</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>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internett-arkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <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="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2777628">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</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>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</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="#id2777628">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></dd><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="#id2777628">«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>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><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>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</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>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2777628">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2777628">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</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>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</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>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">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><dt>Jonson, Ben, <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><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><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>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</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><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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="#id2777628">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2777628">«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>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedskonsentrasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</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>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></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>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</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><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</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="#id2777628">«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>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</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>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</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>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>veteranpensjoner, <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>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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="#id2777628">«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
