risk not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well. Your
investment 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 <citetitle>Business
-2.0</citetitle>, Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW:
+afraid of technologies that touch content. In an article in
+<citetitle>Business 2.0</citetitle>, Rafe Needleman describes a
+discussion with BMW:
</para>
<blockquote>
<indexterm><primary>BMW</primary></indexterm>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 201 -->
The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
-enterprises. The point is the definition of "illegal." The law is a mess of
-uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to new
-technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
-by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law
- imposes,
-that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more
- conservative
-than is right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking
-tickets, we'd not only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much
-less driving. The same 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.
+enterprises. The point is the definition of "illegal." The law is a
+mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply
+to new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial
+deference, and by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that
+copyright law imposes, that uncertainty now yields a reality which is
+far more conservative than is right. If the law imposed the death
+penalty for parking tickets, we'd not only have fewer parking tickets,
+we'd also have much less driving. The same 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.
</para>
<para>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
(2003), 33–35, available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #44</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
-
- Congress
-has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory
- "broadcast
-flag" 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.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f7. --> GartnerG2, 26–27.
+Congress has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory
+"broadcast flag" 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.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f7. -->
+GartnerG2, 26–27.
</para></footnote>
-
</para>
<para>
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the
-code, why not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any
- regulation
-of technical infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular
-technology of the day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on
-
+code, why not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any
+regulation of technical infrastructure will always be tuned to the
+particular technology of the day. It will impose significant burdens
+and costs on
<!-- PAGE BREAK 203 -->
the technology, but will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly
those requirements.
</para>
<para>
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.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f8. --> See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes,
+Intel, tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation
+would impose.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f8. -->
+See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes,
February 2002 (Entertainment).
</para></footnote>
- Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not
-be protected. Instead, they argued, any protection should not do more
+Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not be
+protected. Instead, they argued, any protection should not do more
harm than good.
<indexterm><primary>Intel</primary></indexterm>
</para>
<para>
-There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
- innovation—again,
-a story that will be quite familiar to the free market
-crowd.
+There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
+innovation—again, a story that will be quite familiar to the
+free market crowd.
</para>
<para>
Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form
N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2001).
<indexterm><primary>Litman, Jessica</primary></indexterm>
</para></footnote>
- 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 case of the VCR) has been another.
+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 case of the VCR) has been another.
</para>
<para>
But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / commitdiff