<sect2 id="hollywood">
<title>Why Hollywood Is Right</title>
<para>
-
The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just
how, Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress
and the courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that
rallying makes sense.
</para>
<para>
-Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the
- Internet:
+Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the
+Internet:
</para>
<figure id="fig-1371">
<title>Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</title>
</figure>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 136 -->
-There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The
-law limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties
-on those who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by
-technologies that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture)
-and expensive to copy and share content (market). Finally, those
- penalties
-are mitigated by norms we all recognize—kids, for example, taping
-other kids' records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be
- infringement,
-but the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least)
-had no problem with this form of infringement.
-</para>
-<para>
-Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s
-and p2p sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes
- dramatically,
+There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
+limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on
+those who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by
+technologies that make it hard to copy and share content
+(architecture) and expensive to copy and share content
+(market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by norms we all
+recognize—kids, for example, taping other kids' records. These
+uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but the norms
+of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
+this form of infringement.
+</para>
+<para>
+Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and
+p2p sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically,
as does the constraint of the market. And as both the market and
architecture relax the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The
-happy balance (for the warriors, at least) of life before the Internet
- becomes
-an effective state of anarchy after the Internet.
+happy balance (for the warriors, at least) of life before the Internet
+becomes an effective state of anarchy after the Internet.
</para>
<para>
-Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
- Technology
-has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
-when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of
- protection
-for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq
+Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
+Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this
+change, when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance
+of protection for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is
+Iraq
<!-- PAGE BREAK 137 -->
after the fall of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the
looting that results.
</figure>
<para>
Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
-warriors. Indeed, in a "White Paper" prepared by the Commerce
- Department
-(one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995,
+warriors. Indeed, in a "White Paper" prepared by the Commerce
+Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995,
this mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the
-strategy to respond already mapped. In response to the changes the
- Internet
-had effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should
-strengthen intellectual 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.
-</para>
-<para>
-This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to
- preserve
-the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
-the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry
-to push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life
-you have as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if
- something
-comes along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a
+strategy to respond already mapped. In response to the changes the
+Internet had effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should
+strengthen intellectual 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.
+</para>
+<para>
+This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to
+preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced
+by the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content
+industry to push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the
+happy life you have as an entitlement, and to look to the law to
+protect it if something comes along to change that happy
+life. Homeowners living in a
<!-- PAGE BREAK 138 -->
flood plain have no hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild
-(and rebuild again) when a flood (architecture) wipes away their
- property
-(law). Farmers have no hesitation appealing to the government to
-bail them out when a virus (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions
-have no hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when
-imports (market) wipe out the U.S. steel industry.
+(and rebuild again) when a flood (architecture) wipes away their
+property (law). Farmers have no hesitation appealing to the government
+to bail them out when a virus (architecture) devastates their
+crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to the government to bail
+them out when imports (market) wipe out the U.S. steel industry.
</para>
<para>
Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's
-campaign to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a
- technological
-innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the
-changing 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 "architecture of revenue."
+campaign to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a
+technological innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that
+the changing 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 "architecture of revenue."
</para>
<para>
-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
+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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f5 -->
-See Geoffrey Smith, "Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?"
- BusinessWeek
-online, 2 August 1999, available at
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #23</ulink>. For a more recent
-analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger, "Can
-Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?" Forbes.com, 6 October 2003,
- available
-at
+See Geoffrey Smith, "Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?"
+BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at
+<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #23</ulink>. For a more
+recent analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana
+R. Schoenberger, "Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?" Forbes.com, 6
+October 2003, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #24</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
-Does anyone believe the government should ban
-digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have weakened the
-freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban trucks
-from roads for the purpose of protecting the railroads? Closer to the
- subject
-of this book, remote channel changers have weakened the
- "stickiness"
-of television advertising (if a boring commercial comes on the
-TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and it may well be that this
-change has weakened the television advertising market. But does
- anyone
-believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce commercial
- television?
-(Maybe by limiting them to function only once a second, or to
-switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
+
+Does anyone believe the government should ban digital cameras just to
+support Kodak? Highways have weakened the freight business for
+railroads. Does anyone think we should ban trucks from roads for the
+purpose of protecting the railroads? Closer to the subject of this
+book, remote channel changers have weakened the "stickiness" of
+television advertising (if a boring commercial comes on the TV, the
+remote makes it easy to surf ), and it may well be that this change
+has weakened the television advertising market. But does anyone
+believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce commercial television?
+(Maybe by limiting them to function only once a second, or to switch
+to only ten channels within an hour?)
</para>
<para>
The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.
</para>
<para>
Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
-technologies that change the way they do business to look to the
- government
-for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to
- guarantee
-that that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the
-duty of policy makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they
-create, in response to the request of those hurt by changing technology,
-are changes that preserve the incentives and opportunities for
- innovation
-and change.
-</para>
-<para>
-In the context of laws regulating speech—which include, obviously,
-copyright law—that duty is even stronger. When the industry
- complaining
-about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in
-a way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be
- especially
-wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government
-to get into the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and
-dangers of that game are precisely why our framers created the First
-Amendment to our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law . . .
-abridging the freedom of speech." So when Congress is being asked to
-pass laws that would "abridge" the freedom of speech, it should ask—
-carefully—whether such regulation is justified.
+technologies that change the way they do business to look to the
+government for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to
+guarantee that that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It
+is the duty of policy makers, in other words, to assure that the
+changes they create, in response to the request of those hurt by
+changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and
+opportunities for innovation and change.
+</para>
+<para>
+In the context of laws regulating speech—which include,
+obviously, copyright law—that duty is even stronger. When the
+industry complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to
+respond in a way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers
+should be especially wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for
+the government to get into the business of regulating speech
+markets. The risks and dangers of that game are precisely why our
+framers created the First Amendment to our Constitution: "Congress
+shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." So when
+Congress is being asked to pass laws that would "abridge" the freedom
+of speech, it should ask— carefully—whether such
+regulation is justified.
</para>
<para>
My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether
<!-- PAGE BREAK 140 -->
the changes that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
- "justified."
-My argument is about their effect. For before we get to the
- question
-of justification, a hard question that depends a great deal upon
-your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect of the
-changes the content industry wants.
+"justified." My argument is about their effect. For before we get to
+the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
+deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the
+effect of the changes the content industry wants.
</para>
<para>
Here's the metaphor that will capture the argument to follow.
important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
</para>
<para>
-But in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which argued
-that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having unintended
-environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
- reproduce.
-Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
+But in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which argued that
+DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having unintended
+environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
+reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
</para>
<para>
-No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly
-did not aim to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of
- problems
-produced another set which, in the view of some, was far worse
-than the problems that were originally attacked. Or more accurately,
-the problems DDT caused were 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.
+No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did
+not aim to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems
+produced another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than
+the problems that were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the
+problems DDT caused were 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.
</para>
<para>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James
Boyle appeals when he argues that we need an "environmentalism" for
culture.<footnote><para>
<!-- f7 -->
-See, for example, James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
- Environmentalism
-for the Net?" Duke Law Journal 47 (1997): 87.
-</para></footnote>
-His point, and the point I want to develop in the balance of
-this chapter, is not that the aims of copyright are flawed. Or that
- authors
-should not be paid for their work. Or that music should be given
-away "for free." The point is that some of the ways in which we might
-protect authors will have unintended consequences for the cultural
- environment,
-much like DDT had for the natural environment. And just
+See, for example, James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
+Environmentalism for the Net?" Duke Law Journal 47 (1997): 87.
+</para></footnote>
+His point, and the point I want to develop in the balance of this
+chapter, is not that the aims of copyright are flawed. Or that authors
+should not be paid for their work. Or that music should be given away
+"for free." The point is that some of the ways in which we might
+protect authors will have unintended consequences for the cultural
+environment, much like DDT had for the natural environment. And just
<!-- PAGE BREAK 141 -->
as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria or an attack on
-farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of regulations
- protecting
-copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack on authors.
-It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should be aware
-of our actions' effects on the environment.
+farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of regulations
+protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack on
+authors. It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we
+should be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
</para>
<para>
My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly
<sect2 id="beginnings">
<title>Beginnings</title>
<para>
-America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and
- improved
-English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of
-"creative property" rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the
- English
+America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
+English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of "creative
+property" rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
</para>
<para>
-The power to establish "creative property" rights is granted to
- Congress
-in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article I,
-section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
+The power to establish "creative property" rights is granted to
+Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very
+odd. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
</para>
<para>
Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 142 -->
-We can call this the "Progress Clause," for notice what this clause does
-not say. It does not say Congress has the power to grant "creative
- property
-rights." It says that Congress has the power to promote progress. The
-grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a public one, not the
-purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of
- rewarding
-authors.
+We can call this the "Progress Clause," for notice what this clause
+does not say. It does not say Congress has the power to grant
+"creative property rights." It says that Congress has the power to
+promote progress. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose
+is a public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even
+primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
</para>
<para>
-The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we
-saw in chapter 6, the English limited the term of copyright so as to
- assure
-that a few would not exercise disproportionate control over culture
-by exercising disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume
-the framers followed the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike
-the English, the framers reinforced that objective, by requiring that
-copyrights extend "to Authors" only.
+The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw
+in chapter 6, the English limited the term of copyright so as to
+assure that a few would not exercise disproportionate control over
+culture by exercising disproportionate control over publishing. We can
+assume the framers followed the English for a similar purpose. Indeed,
+unlike the English, the framers reinforced that objective, by
+requiring that copyrights extend "to Authors" only.
</para>
<para>
The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
-Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
-structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built
-a structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them
-short. To prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the
-federal government from establishing a church. To prevent
- concentrating
-power in the federal government, they built structures to reinforce
-the power of the states—including the Senate, whose members were
-at the time selected by the states, and an electoral college, also selected
-by the states, to select the president. In each case, a structure built
-checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to
- prevent
-otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
-</para>
-<para>
-I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
- "copyright"
-today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they
-ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need to put
-our "copyright" in context: We need to see how it has changed in the
-210 years since they first struck its design.
+Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers
+built structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they
+built a structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept
+them short. To prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned
+the federal government from establishing a church. To prevent
+concentrating power in the federal government, they built structures
+to reinforce the power of the states—including the Senate, whose
+members were at the time selected by the states, and an electoral
+college, also selected by the states, to select the president. In each
+case, a structure built checks and balances into the constitutional
+frame, structured to prevent otherwise inevitable concentrations of
+power.
+</para>
+<para>
+I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call "copyright"
+today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they ever
+considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need to put our
+"copyright" in context: We need to see how it has changed in the 210
+years since they first struck its design.
</para>
<para>
Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / commitdiff