-<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="n
b" 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="id2880991"></a><p>
+<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren 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="n
o" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
+og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">
Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Legal Notice"><a name="id2604851"></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
og kontrollere kreativiteten
</p><p>
Lawrence Lessig
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
844006"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2
579566"></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">
"Piratvirksomhet"</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: "Kun etter-apere"</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: "Pirater"</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: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property">"Eiendom"</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: "Eiendom"</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="#id2926833">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2845426"></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">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">“<span class="quote">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="#id2662039">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Colophon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2580992"></a>Colophon</h2><p>
THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 375 Hudson Street
New York, New York
</p><p>
<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16, 2003. Copyright
© 2003 by The New York Times Co. Reprinted with permission.
</p><p>
-Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.”</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
+Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figure 10.18, “VCR/handgun cartoon.”</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
Media Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
</p><p>
-Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, “Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.”</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
+Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figure 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figure 10.19, “Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.”</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
</p><p>
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket "folk som er
ikke pålogget." Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
internettets effekt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
856324"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
580389"></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
Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på. Som jeg vil forklare i
sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av "fri kultur"—ikke
"fri" som i "fri bar" (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
-programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2856305" href="#ftn.id2856305" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men "fri" som i
+programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2580370" href="#ftn.id2580370" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men "fri" som i
"talefrihet", "fritt marked", "frihandel", "fri konkurranse", "fri vilje" og
"frie valg". En fri kultur støtter og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.
Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele immaterielle rettigheter. Men det gjør
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
856406"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
580470"></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
and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
konservative Ted Stevens", formulerte han kanskje det enkleste uttrykket
for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt. Så spurte han:
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2856425"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2580489"></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="id2856448" href="#ftn.id2856448" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2580512" href="#ftn.id2580512" 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, "Don't Just Chat, Do Something," <em class="citetitle">New York
Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2856305" href="#id2856305" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580370" href="#id2580370" 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.id2856448" href="#id2856448" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, "The Great Media Gulp," <em class="citetitle">New York
-Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="id2856456"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580512" href="#id2580512" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, "The Great Media Gulp," <em class="citetitle">New York
+Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="id2580519"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
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, "i ubestemt grad, oppover".<sup>[<a name="id2901416" href="#ftn.id2901416" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I
+bakken, "i ubestemt grad, oppover".<sup>[<a name="id2636531" href="#ftn.id2636531" 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
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
901436"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2901461"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
636551"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2636576"></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
hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
strakk seg "i ubestemt grad, oppover," så hadde regjeringen trengt seg inn
på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for dette.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
901480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2901487"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
636596"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2636602"></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="id2901525" href="#ftn.id2901525" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2636640" href="#ftn.id2636640" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
"Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft."
</p><p>
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
901590"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2901596"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
636705"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2636712"></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
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="id2901659"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901668"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901674"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2636774"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2636783"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2636790"></a>
</p><p>
Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde
det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. …
Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
utført. … Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
-noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en radio-"musikk-boks".<sup>[<a name="id2901727" href="#ftn.id2901727" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
+noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en radio-"musikk-boks".<sup>[<a name="id2636842" href="#ftn.id2636842" 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 "radio.". Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin oppfinnelse, var ikke
-Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2901783"></a>
+Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id2636898"></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="id2901687" href="#ftn.id2901687" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2636802" href="#ftn.id2636802" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2901824"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2636940"></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="id2901851" href="#ftn.id2901851" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
+makt.<sup>[<a name="id2636966" href="#ftn.id2636966" 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="id2901867" href="#ftn.id2901867" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
901906"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2636982" href="#ftn.id2636982" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
637021"></a><p>
For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv. I følge the Pew
Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år
-tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2901988" href="#ftn.id2901988" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
+tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2637103" href="#ftn.id2637103" 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
mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle menn satt rundt i parker eller på
gatehjørner og fortalte historier som unger og andre lyttet til, så var det
ikke-kommersiell kultur. Da Noah Webster publiserte sin "Reader", eller
-Joel Barlow sin poesi, så var det kommersiell kultur. <a class="indexterm" name="id2901922"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902060"></a>
+Joel Barlow sin poesi, så var det kommersiell kultur. <a class="indexterm" name="id2637037"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2637175"></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="id2902093" href="#ftn.id2902093" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2637208" href="#ftn.id2637208" 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="id2902129" href="#ftn.id2902129" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
+fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2637245" href="#ftn.id2637245" 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
"piratvirksomhet" vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt "eiendomsretten" vil bli
beskyttet. "Krigen" som har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til
internettet—det presidenten for Motion Picture Association of America
-(MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin "egen terroristkrig"<sup>[<a name="id2902257" href="#ftn.id2902257" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge
+(MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin "egen terroristkrig"<sup>[<a name="id2637372" href="#ftn.id2637372" 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="id2902324" href="#ftn.id2902324" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2637439" href="#ftn.id2637439" 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
902406"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902411"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
637521"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2637527"></a><p>
Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om "eiendomsrett". Eiendommen i
denne krigen er ikke like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige
kyllinger har så langt mistet livet. Likevel er idéene rundt denne
de nye teknologiene til internettet "tar seg til rette" mot legitime krav
til "eiendomsrett". 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
902454"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902461"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
637570"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2637576"></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
902550"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902556"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
637665"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2637671"></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.id2901416" href="#id2901416" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2636531" href="#id2636531" 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.id2901525" href="#id2901525" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2636640" href="#id2636640" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
å "ta" hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde ødelagt verdien
av eiendomen til Causby. Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for meg i Keith
a cultural Geography of Authorship", <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="id2901558"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901554"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901727" href="#id2901727" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
+(1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2636674"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2636669"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2636842" href="#id2636842" 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.id2901687" href="#id2901687" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," første
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2636802" href="#id2636802" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," 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.id2901851" href="#id2901851" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901867" href="#id2901867" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2636966" href="#id2636966" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2636982" href="#id2636982" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901988" href="#id2901988" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637103" href="#id2637103" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
Amanda Lenhart, "The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
Internet Access and the Digital Divide," 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.id2902093" href="#id2902093" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637208" href="#id2637208" 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
å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy",
-Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. <a class="indexterm" name="id2901742"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902129" href="#id2902129" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
+Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. <a class="indexterm" name="id2636857"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637245" href="#id2637245" 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="id2902138"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902257" href="#id2902257" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id2637253"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637372" href="#id2637372" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
Amy Harmon, "Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New Tools
to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club," <em class="citetitle">New York
Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902324" href="#id2902324" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637439" href="#id2637439" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
Neil W. Netanel, "Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society," <em class="citetitle">Yale
-Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2902332"></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. "Piratvirksomhet"</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title='"Piratvirksomhet"'><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
+Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id2637447"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="part" title=
"Part I. “Piratvirksomhet”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part 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 "piratvirksomhet". De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
"piratvirksomhet", har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet av
</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="id2902692" href="#ftn.id2902692" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
902706"></a></blockquote></div><p>
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2637809" href="#ftn.id2637809" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
637822"></a></blockquote></div><p>
I dag er vi midt inne i en annen "krig" mot "piratvirksomhet". Internettet
har fremprovosert denne krigen. Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre
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
902805"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
637921"></a><p>
Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor
Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som "hvis verdi, så rettighet"-teorien
-for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2902820" href="#ftn.id2902820" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha rettigheten til denne
+for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2637936" href="#ftn.id2637936" 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="id2902840" href="#ftn.id2902840" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
+jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2637956" href="#ftn.id2637956" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
"rettighet"—til og med mot jentespeiderne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
902869"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
637985"></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
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
902922"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
638039"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2638044"></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
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, "Fremveksten av den kreative
-klasse"<sup>[<a name="id2902931" href="#ftn.id2902931" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Dessverre ser vi også en
+klasse"<sup>[<a name="id2638048" href="#ftn.id2638048" 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 "piratvirksomhet" i sin rette sammenheng.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902692" href="#id2902692" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637809" href="#id2637809" 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.id2902820" href="#id2902820" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637936" href="#id2637936" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, "Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the
Pepsi Generation," <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review</em> 65 (1990):
397.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902840" href="#id2902840" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637956" href="#id2637956" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
Lisa Bannon, "The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay Up,"
<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, "Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
Speech, No One Wins," <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 24. november
-2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2902858"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902931" href="#id2902931" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
+2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id2637974"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2638048" href="#id2638048" 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="id2902961"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2903011"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><p>
+vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2638077"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2638128"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><p>
I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse. Jeg trodde de
tullet med meg. Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt. Det
-var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2903126" href="#ftn.id2903126" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
+var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2638242" href="#ftn.id2638242" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: "Jeg har aldri vært så begeistret
-i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like bra." <a class="indexterm" name="id2903150"></a>
+i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like bra." <a class="indexterm" name="id2638266"></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="id2903221" href="#ftn.id2903221" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
+Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2638337" href="#ftn.id2638337" 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 "låningen" var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for industrien.
Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
-ham.<sup>[<a name="id2903273" href="#ftn.id2903273" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
+ham.<sup>[<a name="id2638389" href="#ftn.id2638389" 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
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="id2903415" href="#ftn.id2903415" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2638531" href="#ftn.id2638531" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en "eksklusiv rett" til a kontrollere bestemte
typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på
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"
-og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2903584" href="#ftn.id2903584" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
+og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2638701" href="#ftn.id2638701" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
rekke regler, og du må følge dem". Det er ting som Supermann "ikke kan"
gjøre. "For en som lager tegneserier er det frustrerende å måtte begrense
seg til noen parameter som er femti år gamle."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
903708"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
638824"></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="id2903734" href="#ftn.id2903734" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
+bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2638850" href="#ftn.id2638850" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
er at mekanismen som produserer denne "hold hendene borte"-responsen ikke er
Vi lever i en verden som feirer "eiendom". 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 "immateriell
-eiendom".<sup>[<a name="id2903827" href="#ftn.id2903827" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et stort og variert samfunn
+eiendom".<sup>[<a name="id2638943" href="#ftn.id2638943" 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.id2903126" href="#id2903126" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2638242" href="#id2638242" 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.id2903221" href="#id2903221" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2638337" href="#id2638337" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
"Joyful Hurry No. 1" (Baron), og "Gawky Rube" (Lakay). En sjette sang, "The
Turkey in the Straw," 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.id2903273" href="#id2903273" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2638389" href="#id2638389" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, "The Mouse that
Ate the Public Domain," 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.id2903415" href="#id2903415" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2638531" href="#id2638531" 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.id2903584" href="#id2903584" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2638701" href="#id2638701" 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.id2903734" href="#id2903734" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2638850" href="#id2638850" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
Se Salil K. Mehra, "Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain Why All
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."
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2903827" href="#id2903827" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2638943" href="#id2638943" 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
"eiendoms"-rettigheter—opphavsretter, patenter, varemerker og
forretningshemmeligheter—men egenskapene til disse rettighetene er
-svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2903846"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title=
'Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
+svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2638962"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title=
"2. Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>2. Kapittel to: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
produsere det vi ville kalle "fotografier". Rimelig nok ble de kalt
"daguerreotyper". Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og 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="id2904074"></a>
+slik at prisene var høye.) <a class="indexterm" name="id2639194"></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
forble prosessen kostbar og tung. På 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="id2904095"></a>
+som var innenfor rekkevidden til de fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id2639214"></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
</p><p>
Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken. Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
-dens enkelhet. "Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser resten."<sup>[<a name="id2904142" href="#ftn.id2904142" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i <em class="citetitle">The Kodak
-Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2904156"></a>
+dens enkelhet. "Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser resten."<sup>[<a name="id2639261" href="#ftn.id2639261" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i <em class="citetitle">The Kodak
+Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2639275"></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="id2901923" href="#ftn.id2901923" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
+et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2637038" href="#ftn.id2637038" 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="id2904221" href="#ftn.id2904221" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
-samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2904231" href="#ftn.id2904231" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
904240"></a><p>
+prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2639340" href="#ftn.id2639340" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
+samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2639350" href="#ftn.id2639350" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
639359"></a><p>
Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
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."<sup>[<a name="id2904172" href="#ftn.id2904172" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
+laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet."<sup>[<a name="id2639292" href="#ftn.id2639292" 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="id2904322" href="#ftn.id2904322" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
+trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2639440" href="#ftn.id2639440" 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
904354"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
639473"></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="id2904388" href="#ftn.id2904388" 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="id2639507" href="#ftn.id2639507" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
begrensninger enn resten av oss. Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
-fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2904440" href="#ftn.id2904440" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
+fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2639559" href="#ftn.id2639559" 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
besøker 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
904502"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2904512"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
639621"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2639632"></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, "for fem år siden kostet et godt
sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000. I dag kan du få
-profesjonell kvalitet for $595."<sup>[<a name="id2904598" href="#ftn.id2904598" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse
+profesjonell kvalitet for $595."<sup>[<a name="id2639718" href="#ftn.id2639718" 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
Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, "er 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". <a class="indexterm" name="id2904261"></a>
+blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem". <a class="indexterm" name="id2639380"></a>
</p><p>
Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på "skrivefør". For de fleste
handler skrivefør å kunne lese og skrive. "Skriveføre folk kjenner ting som
</p><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="id2904659" href="#ftn.id2904659" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
+reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2639780" href="#ftn.id2639780" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
viktig å forstå "gramatikken" 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 lærer unger å
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
904692"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
639813"></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
"plasseringen av objekter, farger, … rytme, skritt og
-tekstur".<sup>[<a name="id2904624" href="#ftn.id2904624" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
+tekstur".<sup>[<a name="id2639744" href="#ftn.id2639744" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir "spillt" i
tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den enkle kontrollen til
forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre teknikker nødvendig.
fiction. Men da han forsøkte å lage et 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="id2904778" href="#ftn.id2904778" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
904800"></a><p>
+selv for en enormt vellykket forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id2639899" href="#ftn.id2639899" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
639922"></a><p>
Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
filmer. Som Daley skriver, "folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de blir
ledet gjennom en film. Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra å se
verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede. Målet med
enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å "gi folket
myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
-uttrykke".<sup>[<a name="id2904871" href="#ftn.id2904871" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter mulighet
-"til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste århundret".<sup>[<a name="id2904890" href="#ftn.id2904890" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
904898"></a><p>
+uttrykke".<sup>[<a name="id2639992" href="#ftn.id2639992" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter mulighet
+"til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste århundret".<sup>[<a name="id2640011" href="#ftn.id2640011" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
640019"></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
seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik vi i stadig større grad
forventer det, "nyheter som underholdning", selv om underholdningen er en
tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
905095"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905101"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
640216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2640222"></a><p>
Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om "tragedien 11. september",
kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i tillegg se en svært
annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av fortellinger om de samme
diskuterte. Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var "riktig" resultat, de
forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om "riktig"resultat, og i hvert fall i
kriminalsaker måtte de bli enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen
-skulle avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2905157" href="#ftn.id2905157" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
+skulle avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2640278" href="#ftn.id2640278" 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="id2905285" href="#ftn.id2905285" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
+innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id2640406" href="#ftn.id2640406" 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 "demokratisk diskusjon".
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="id2905318" href="#ftn.id2905318" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
+ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2640439" href="#ftn.id2640439" 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="id2905376"></a>
+lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2640497"></a>
</p><p>
En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
store mediene. Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel. Da Logg "sa feil" på en
Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien. Etter hvert dukket flere og
flere tilfeller av tilsvarende "feiluttalelser" 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="id2905408" href="#ftn.id2905408" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2905416"></a>
+leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id2640529" href="#ftn.id2640529" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2640537"></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.
amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt, eller
interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan rydde den
av veien."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
905483"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
640604"></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="id2905248" href="#ftn.id2905248" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
+ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2640369" href="#ftn.id2640369" 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
ikke betalt av noen for å 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="id2905495" href="#ftn.id2905495" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere til å lese på tvers av en rekke
+til internettet for å gjenfortelle hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id2640616" href="#ftn.id2640616" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere til å lese på tvers av en rekke
fortellinger og "triangulere", som Winer formulerer det, sannheten.
Blogger, sier Winer, "kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og
mellommannen er fjernet"— med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre
blogger. "Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet", spår Winer, for
offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører. Det er ikke
klart at "journalismen" er glad for dette—noen journalister har blitt
-bedt om å kutte ut sin blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2905565" href="#ftn.id2905565" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men
+bedt om å kutte ut sin blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2640686" href="#ftn.id2640686" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men
det er klart at vi fortsatt er i en overgangsfase. "Mye av det vi gjør nå
er oppvarmingsøvelser", fortalte Winer meg. Det er mye som må modne før
dette området har sin modne effekt. Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og 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
905670"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
640791"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i
følge hans eget nettsted, er "menneskelig læring og … å skape
kunnskapsøkologier for å skape … innovasjon".
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."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
905772"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
640894"></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
grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
</p><p>
Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
-Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>) har utviklet et
+Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>) har utviklet et
kraftfylt argument til fordel for "retten til å fikle" slik det gjøres i
-informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2905857" href="#ftn.id2905857" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup>
+informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2640978" href="#ftn.id2640978" 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>
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".
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
905887"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
641008"></a><p>
Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
denne kreativiteten over alt. Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
teknologien.
</p><p>
"Ikke måten å drive en kultur på", sa Brewster Kahle, som vi møtte i
-kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>,
+kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>,
kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av nedstemthet.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904142" href="#id2904142" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639261" href="#id2639261" 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.id2901923" href="#id2901923" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2637038" href="#id2637038" 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="id2904195"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904221" href="#id2904221" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
+Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id2639314"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639340" href="#id2639340" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904231" href="#id2904231" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639350" href="#id2639350" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904172" href="#id2904172" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639292" href="#id2639292" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904322" href="#id2904322" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639440" href="#id2639440" 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.id2904388" href="#id2904388" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639507" href="#id2639507" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy,"
-<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2904397"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2904405"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904440" href="#id2904440" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2639516"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2639524"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639559" href="#id2639559" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
Se Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," <em class="citetitle">Law and
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.id2904598" href="#id2904598" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639718" href="#id2639718" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
H. Edward Goldberg, "Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You
Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations," 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.id2904659" href="#id2904659" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639780" href="#id2639780" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); "Findings on Family
and TV Study," <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai 1997, B6.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904624" href="#id2904624" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639744" href="#id2639744" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2904751"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2904759"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904778" href="#id2904778" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2639872"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2639880"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639899" href="#id2639899" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
Se Scott Steinberg, "Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs," E!online, 4. november
2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#8</a>; "Timeline," 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.id2904871" href="#id2904871" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2639992" href="#id2639992" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2904878"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904890" href="#id2904890" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2639999"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640011" href="#id2640011" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905157" href="#id2905157" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640278" href="#id2640278" 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.id2905285" href="#id2905285" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640406" href="#id2640406" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day," <em class="citetitle">Journal of
Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905318" href="#id2905318" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640439" href="#id2640439" 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.id2905408" href="#id2905408" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640529" href="#id2640529" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
Noah Shachtman, "With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot," New York
Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905248" href="#id2905248" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640369" href="#id2640369" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905495" href="#id2905495" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640616" href="#id2640616" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of Information
Online," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar 2003, A28; Staci
D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," 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.id2905565" href="#id2905565" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640686" href="#id2640686" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
Se Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?" <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 29. september 2003, C4. ("Ikke alle
forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve Olafson, en
<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") <a class="indexterm" name="id2905613"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905857" href="#id2905857" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
+temaene og folkene som han dekket") <a class="indexterm" name="id2640734"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2640978" href="#id2640978" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, "Technological Access
Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,"
<em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2905948"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2641069"></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
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="id2906217" href="#ftn.id2906217" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
906230"></a><p>
+2001.<sup>[<a name="id2641338" href="#ftn.id2641338" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
641352"></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
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="id2906281" href="#ftn.id2906281" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
+Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2641402" href="#ftn.id2641402" 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="id2906326" href="#ftn.id2906326" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
+student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2641447" href="#ftn.id2641447" 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."
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906217" href="#id2906217" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641338" href="#id2641338" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
Tim Goral, "Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages," <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.id2906281" href="#id2906281" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641402" href="#id2641402" 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.id2906326" href="#id2906326" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641447" href="#id2641447" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i "KaZaA and Punishment,"
<em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10. september 2003, A24.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</h2></div></div></div><p>
-If "piracy" means using the creative property of others without their
-permission—if "if value, then right" is true—then the history of
-the content industry is a history of piracy. Every important sector of "big
-media" today—film, records, radio, and cable TV—was born of a
-kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last generation's
-pirates join this generation's country club—until now.
-</p><div class="section" title="4.1. Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
-
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id2906416" href="#ftn.id2906416" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast
-to California in the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that
-patents granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls
-were exercised through a monopoly "trust," the Motion Pictures Patents
-Company, and were based on Thomas Edison's creative property—patents.
-Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this creative property gave
-him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it demanded.
-</p><p>
-As one commentator tells one part of the story,
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>4. Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Pirater</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
+Hvis "piratvirksomhet" betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten
+deres tillatelse—hvis "hvis verdi, så rettighet" er sant—da er
+historien om innholdsindustrien en historie om piratvirksomhet. Hver eneste
+viktige sektor av "store medier" i dag—film, plager, radio og
+kabel-TV—kom fra en slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen. Den
+konsekvente fortellingen er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne
+generasjonens borgerskap—inntil nå.
+</p><div class="section" title="4.1. Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
+
+Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2641548" href="#ftn.id2641548" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
+California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
+kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
+Edison. Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et monopol-"kartell", The
+Motion Pictures Patents company, og var basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative
+eierrettigheter—patenter. Edison stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene
+som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga ham, og MPPC var seriøst med
+kontrollen de krevde.
+</p><p>
+Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-A January 1909 deadline was set for all companies to comply with the
-license. By February, unlicensed outlaws, who referred to themselves as
-independents protested the trust and carried on business without submitting
-to the Edison monopoly. In the summer of 1909 the independent movement was
-in full-swing, with producers and theater owners using illegal equipment and
-imported film stock to create their own underground market.
+En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
+med lisensen. Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
+refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
+forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol. Sommeren 1909
+var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
+som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
+undergrunnsmarked.
</p><p>
With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
-defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id2906477" href="#ftn.id2906477" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2906503"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2906509"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2906516"></a>
+defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id2641622" href="#ftn.id2641622" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2641648"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2641655"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2641661"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The Napsters of those days, the "independents," were companies like Fox. And
no less than today, these independents were vigorously resisted. "Shooting
was disrupted by machinery stolen, and `accidents' resulting in loss of
negatives, equipment, buildings and sometimes life and limb frequently
-occurred."<sup>[<a name="id2906531" href="#ftn.id2906531" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to
+occurred."<sup>[<a name="id2641677" href="#ftn.id2641677" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to
flee the East Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that
filmmakers there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And
the leaders of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket opp. En ny
industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's kreative
rettigheter.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.2.
Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="4.2.
Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
musikk.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
906601"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2
641746"></a><p>
At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for
reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the
law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and
words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's 1899 hit "Happy Mose,"
the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy of the musical
score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform it publicly.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
906628"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
641764"></a><p>
But what if I wanted to record "Happy Mose," using Edison's phonograph or
Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear enough that I
would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I performed in making
wasn't clear whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of
those recordings. Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively
pirate someone else's song without paying its composer anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2906636"></a><p>
-The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about this capacity to
-pirate. As South Dakota senator Alfred Kittredge put it, <a class="indexterm" name="id2906671"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2641772"></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="id2641810"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
-Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an opera. A
-publisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and copyrights
-it. Along come the phonographic companies and companies who cut music rolls
-and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the composer and publisher
-without any regard for [their] rights.<sup>[<a name="id2906690" href="#ftn.id2906690" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
+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="id2641837" href="#ftn.id2641837" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
were "sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of American
-composers,"<sup>[<a name="id2906721" href="#ftn.id2906721" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the "music publishing
+composers,"<sup>[<a name="id2641867" href="#ftn.id2641867" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the "music publishing
industry" was thereby "at the complete mercy of this one
-pirate."<sup>[<a name="id2906731" href="#ftn.id2906731" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As John Philip Sousa put it,
+pirate."<sup>[<a name="id2641878" href="#ftn.id2641878" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As John Philip Sousa put it,
in as direct a way as possible, "When they make money out of my pieces, I
-want a share of it."<sup>[<a name="id2906742" href="#ftn.id2906742" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
+want a share of it."<sup>[<a name="id2641889" href="#ftn.id2641889" 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 "it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of automatic
music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had before their
introduction." Rather, the machines increased the sales of sheet
-music.<sup>[<a name="id2906760" href="#ftn.id2906760" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the innovators
+music.<sup>[<a name="id2641913" href="#ftn.id2641913" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the innovators
argued, the job of Congress was "to consider first the interest of [the
public], whom they represent, and whose servants they are." "All talk about
`theft,'" the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company wrote, "is
the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas musical, literary
-or artistic, except as defined by statute."<sup>[<a name="id2906765" href="#ftn.id2906765" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2906785"></a>
+or artistic, except as defined by statute."<sup>[<a name="id2641918" href="#ftn.id2641918" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2641938"></a>
</p><p>
The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham,
and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's
-work except with permission of Grisham. <a class="indexterm" name="id2906832"></a>
+work except with permission of Grisham. <a class="indexterm" name="id2641985"></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="id2906443" href="#ftn.id2906443" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2906873"></a>
+follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id2641580" href="#ftn.id2641580" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2642026"></a>
</p><p>
While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
-choice.<sup>[<a name="id2906905" href="#ftn.id2906905" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
+choice.<sup>[<a name="id2642058" href="#ftn.id2642058" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.3.
Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
-Radio was also born of piracy.
+</p></div><div class="section" title="4.3.
Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
+Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a "public
-performance" of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2906941" href="#ftn.id2906941" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As
+performance" of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2642095" href="#ftn.id2642095" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As
I described above, the law gives the composer (or copyright holder) an
exclusive right to public performances of his work. The radio station thus
owes the composer money for that performance.
Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the composition
performed on the radio station. And if the law were perfectly consistent,
the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his work, just
-as it pays the composer of the music for his work. <a class="indexterm" name="id2907007"></a>
+as it pays the composer of the music for his work. <a class="indexterm" name="id2642161"></a>
</p><p>
public performance of her recording is not a "protected" right. The radio
station thus gets to <span class="emphasis"><em>pirate</em></span> the value of Madonna's work
without paying her anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
907058"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
642212"></a><p>
No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
nothing.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="4.4.
Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="4.4.
Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
-Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
+Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
egregiously than anything Napster ever did— Napster never charged for
the content it enabled others to give away.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
907092"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2907108"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2907115"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
642247"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2642263"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2642270"></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 "unfair and
-potentially destructive competition."<sup>[<a name="id2907126" href="#ftn.id2907126" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup>
+potentially destructive competition."<sup>[<a name="id2642281" href="#ftn.id2642281" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup>
There may have been a "public interest" 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, "Does public
-interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?"<sup>[<a name="id2907148" href="#ftn.id2907148" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another broadcaster put it,
+interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?"<sup>[<a name="id2642303" href="#ftn.id2642303" 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="id2907166" href="#ftn.id2907166" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
+for.<sup>[<a name="id2642321" href="#ftn.id2642321" 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="id2907194" href="#ftn.id2907194" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
907205"></a><p>
+ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2642348" href="#ftn.id2642348" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
642360"></a><p>
Disse var "gratispassasjerer", sa presidenten Charlton Heston i Screen
-Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"<sup>[<a name="id2907218" href="#ftn.id2907218" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
+Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"<sup>[<a name="id2642372" href="#ftn.id2642372" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister
Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
extend that monopoly. … The question here is how much compensation
they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
-compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2906357" href="#ftn.id2906357" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2907270"></a>
+compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2641478" href="#ftn.id2641478" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2642425"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
</p><p>
These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy" means using value
from someone else's creative property without permission from that
-creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2907258" href="#ftn.id2907258" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> — then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
+creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2642413" href="#ftn.id2642413" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> — then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. … The list is long and
could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
last. Every generation—until now.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906416" href="#id2906416" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641548" href="#id2641548" 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
-"eventyr" med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2906312"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906477" href="#id2906477" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
+"eventyr" med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2641433"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641622" href="#id2641622" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright"
(September 2002), University of Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in
-Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 159. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906531" href="#id2906531" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
+Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 159. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641677" href="#id2641677" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
Marc Wanamaker, "The First Studios," <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.id2906690" href="#id2906690" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641837" href="#id2641837" 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="id2906703"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906721" href="#id2906721" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
+Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="id2641849"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641867" href="#id2641867" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (statement of
-Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906731" href="#id2906731" class="para">56</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.id2641878" href="#id2641878" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (statement of
-Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906742" href="#id2906742" class="para">57</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.id2641889" href="#id2641889" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
-To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (statement of
-John Philip Sousa, composer).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906760" href="#id2906760" class="para">58</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.id2641913" href="#id2641913" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84
-(statement of Albert Walker, representative of the Auto-Music Perforating
+(uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
Company of New York).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906765" href="#id2906765" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641918" href="#id2641918" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
Graphophone Company Association).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906443" href="#id2906443" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641580" href="#id2641580" 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.id2906905" href="#id2906905" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642058" href="#id2642058" 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.id2906941" href="#id2906941" 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.id2642095" href="#id2642095" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
the beginning, record companies printed "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast"
Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag:
Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright,"
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 281.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2906966"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2906974"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907126" href="#id2907126" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2642120"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2642128"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642281" href="#id2642281" 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="id2907099"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907148" href="#id2907148" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
+H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission). <a class="indexterm" name="id2642254"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642303" href="#id2642303" 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.id2907166" href="#id2907166" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642321" href="#id2642321" 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.id2907194" href="#id2907194" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642348" href="#id2642348" 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.id2907218" href="#id2907218" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642372" href="#id2642372" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
-president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id2907199"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906357" href="#id2906357" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
+president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="id2642354"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2641478" href="#id2641478" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
-Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-acting assistant attorney general). <a class="indexterm" name="id2907221"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907258" href="#id2907258" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
+Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
+fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="id2642376"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642413" href="#id2642413" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. "The threat of
piracy—the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
compensation—has grown with the Internet."
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title=
'Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title=
"5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>5. Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
the law should account for that ambiguity, as it has so often done in the
past.
-</p><div class="section" title="5.1.
Piracy I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="5.1.
Piracy I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><p>
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="id2907250" href="#ftn.id2907250" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
+every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2642404" href="#ftn.id2642404" 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="id2907463" href="#ftn.id2907463" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
+intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2642620" href="#ftn.id2642620" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
nations, this piracy is wrong.
case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
-otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2907514" href="#ftn.id2907514" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
+otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2642671" href="#ftn.id2642671" 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
that buying will benefit 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="id2907610"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2907616"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2907622"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2907634"></a>
+Microsoft. Without piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. <a class="indexterm" name="id2642766"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2642773"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2642779"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2642791"></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="id2907384"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2907659"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2907679"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2907686"></a>
+access, then violating the law is still wrong. <a class="indexterm" name="id2642541"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2642822"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2642843"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2642849"></a>
</p><p>
</p><p>
These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="5.2.
Piracy II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piracy II</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="5.2.
Piracy II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piracy II</h2></div></div></div><p>
The key to the "piracy" that the law aims to quash is a use that "rob[s] the
-author of [his] profit."<sup>[<a name="id2907754" href="#ftn.id2907754" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we
+author of [his] profit."<sup>[<a name="id2642917" href="#ftn.id2642917" 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.
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="id2907778" href="#ftn.id2907778" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
+Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2642941" href="#ftn.id2642941" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
crew had simply put together components that had been developed
-independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2907807"></a>
+independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2642970"></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="id2907820" href="#ftn.id2907820" 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="id2642983" href="#ftn.id2642983" 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="id2907855" href="#ftn.id2907855" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
+Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2643019" href="#ftn.id2643019" 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="id2907883" href="#ftn.id2907883" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
+May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2643046" href="#ftn.id2643046" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
being "taken" 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="id2907937"></a>
+of purchasing. <a class="indexterm" name="id2643108"></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="id2908004" href="#ftn.id2908004" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
+economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2643176" href="#ftn.id2643176" 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, "Rather
than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought
-it."<sup>[<a name="id2908049" href="#ftn.id2908049" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed that every
+it."<sup>[<a name="id2643220" href="#ftn.id2643220" 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 the answer.
the end," Cap Gemini concludes, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2907525" href="#ftn.id2907525" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
+major labels."<sup>[<a name="id2642681" href="#ftn.id2642681" 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="id2908144" href="#ftn.id2908144" 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="id2643324" href="#ftn.id2643324" 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. "From 1999 to 2001, the average price
-of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19."<sup>[<a name="id2908188" href="#ftn.id2908188" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
+of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19."<sup>[<a name="id2643367" href="#ftn.id2643367" 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, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2908220" href="#ftn.id2908220" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
+get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99."<sup>[<a name="id2643400" href="#ftn.id2643400" 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="id2908244" href="#ftn.id2908244" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
+are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2643424" href="#ftn.id2643424" 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="id2908301" href="#ftn.id2908301" 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="id2643481" href="#ftn.id2643481" 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
908348"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
643528"></a><p>
Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
available isn't making money from making the content available. It is also
</p><p>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
of the "piracy" that file sharing enables is plainly legal and good. And
-like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title='Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'>4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new way of
+like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new way of
spreading content caused by changes in the technology of distribution. Thus,
consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood, radio, the recording
industry, and cable TV, the question we should be asking about file sharing
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 "down to
-zero."<sup>[<a name="id2908466" href="#ftn.id2908466" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
+zero."<sup>[<a name="id2643637" href="#ftn.id2643637" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
<span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
control over the future (cable).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
908563"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
643734"></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 "tapeworms." He warned, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2908611" href="#ftn.id2908611" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup>
+copyright owner has, his copyright."<sup>[<a name="id2643782" href="#ftn.id2643782" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup>
"One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and creative
judgment," he told Congress, "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."<sup>[<a name="id2908628" href="#ftn.id2908628" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later
+sense."<sup>[<a name="id2643799" href="#ftn.id2643799" 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="id2908637" href="#ftn.id2908637" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup> — a use the Court would
+more<sup>[<a name="id2643808" href="#ftn.id2643808" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup> — a use the Court would
later hold was not "fair." By "allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the
means of an exemption from copyright infringementwithout creating a
mechanism to compensate copyrightowners," Valenti testified, Congress would
"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."<sup>[<a name="id2908545" href="#ftn.id2908545" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
+thereby profit from its reproduction."<sup>[<a name="id2643716" href="#ftn.id2643716" 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
Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar technology—which Jack
Valenti had called "the Boston Strangler of the American film industry"
(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="id2908671" href="#ftn.id2908671" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2908696"></a>
+American film industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2643842" href="#ftn.id2643842" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2643868"></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="id2908722" href="#ftn.id2908722" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
+technology.<sup>[<a name="id2643894" href="#ftn.id2643894" 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
notwithstanding. If we put these cases together, a 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 "røvet"</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="id2908850" href="#ftn.id2908850" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
+content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2644021" href="#ftn.id2644021" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a "free ride" 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
"has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible
-uses of his work."<sup>[<a name="id2908930" href="#ftn.id2908930" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup> Instead, the
+uses of his work."<sup>[<a name="id2644108" href="#ftn.id2644108" 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 been done
efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network. Left to
develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these
"potential public benefits," as John Schwartz writes in <em class="citetitle">The New
-York Times</em>, "could be delayed in the P2P fight."<sup>[<a name="id2908982" href="#ftn.id2908982" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the
+York Times</em>, "could be delayed in the P2P fight."<sup>[<a name="id2644160" href="#ftn.id2644160" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the
copyright warriors raise a different argument. "All this hand waving about
balance and incentives," they say, "misses a fundamental point. Our
content," the warriors insist, "is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why
</p><p>
"Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>," insisterer krigerne. "og den bør
være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen eiendom er beskyttet."
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907250" href="#id2907250" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642404" href="#id2642404" 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, "Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,"
<em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907463" href="#id2907463" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642620" href="#id2642620" 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="id2906767"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2907495"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907514" href="#id2907514" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
+framework. <a class="indexterm" name="id2641920"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2642651"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642671" href="#id2642671" 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." Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2907472"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907754" href="#id2907754" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
+pirating were not an option." Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id2642629"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642917" href="#id2642917" 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.id2907778" href="#id2907778" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642941" href="#id2642941" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
for their own products. This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
-89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2907524"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907820" href="#id2907820" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
+89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2642680"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642983" href="#id2642983" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
See Carolyn Lochhead, "Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,"
Wake-Up Call," <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
Naughton, "Hollywood at War with the Internet" (London)
<em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907855" href="#id2907855" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643019" href="#id2643019" 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.id2907883" href="#id2907883" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643046" href="#id2643046" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
Amy Harmon, "Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight," <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908004" href="#id2908004" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643176" href="#id2643176" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
-148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2907796"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908049" href="#id2908049" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2642959"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643220" href="#id2643220" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
older than ten had taped music to a cassette 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.id2907525" href="#id2907525" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
+Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2642681" href="#id2642681" 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.id2908144" href="#id2908144" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643324" href="#id2643324" 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)."
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908188" href="#id2908188" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643367" href="#id2643367" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
Jane Black, "Big Music's Broken Record," 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="id2908202"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908220" href="#id2908220" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
+#17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2643381"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643400" href="#id2643400" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908244" href="#id2908244" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643424" href="#id2643424" 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.id2908301" href="#id2908301" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643481" href="#id2643481" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
National Association of Recording Merchandisers, "2002 Annual Survey
Results," 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.id2908466" href="#id2908466" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643637" href="#id2643637" 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.id2908611" href="#id2908611" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643782" href="#id2643782" 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.id2908628" href="#id2908628" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643799" href="#id2643799" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908637" href="#id2908637" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643808" href="#id2643808" 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.id2908545" href="#id2908545" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643716" href="#id2643716" 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.id2908671" href="#id2908671" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643842" href="#id2643842" 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.id2908722" href="#id2908722" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643894" href="#id2643894" 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.id2908850" href="#id2908850" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644021" href="#id2644021" 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, "From Edison to
the Broadcast Flag," <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
-70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2908488"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908930" href="#id2908930" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
+70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id2643659"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644108" href="#id2644108" 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.id2908982" href="#id2908982" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644160" href="#id2644160" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, "New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software Echoes Past
Efforts," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 September 2003, C3.
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title=
'Del II. "Eiendom"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Del II. "Eiendom"</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title='"Eiendom"'><div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title=
"Part II. “Eiendom”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Part II. <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>”</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="“Eiendom”"><div></div><p>
woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
copy the way someone else dresses), "He who receives an idea from me,
receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
-taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."<sup>[<a name="id2909063" href="#ftn.id2909063" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
+taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."<sup>[<a name="id2644242" href="#ftn.id2644242" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The exceptions to free use are ideas and expressions within the reach of the
law of patent and copyright, and a few other domains that I won't discuss
But how, and to what extent, and in what form—the details, in other
words—matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
intangible into property emerged, we need to place this "property" in its
-proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2909108" href="#ftn.id2909108" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
+proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2644288" href="#ftn.id2644288" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding
part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of "copyright material is
true statement—"copyright material is property"— will be a bit
more clear, and its implications will be revealed as quite different from
the implications that the copyright warriors would have us draw.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909063" href="#id2909063" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644242" href="#id2644242" 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.id2909108" href="#id2909108" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644288" href="#id2644288" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff, "What
Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together," <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law
Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2909156"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2644335"></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 "opphavsretten" kun tilhørte én eneste utgiver i
-London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2909192" href="#ftn.id2909192" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson var den
-mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"<sup>[<a name="id2909222" href="#ftn.id2909222" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele
+London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2644371" href="#ftn.id2644371" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson var den
+mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"<sup>[<a name="id2644401" href="#ftn.id2644401" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele
1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde en evigvarende rett over "kopier"
av bøker de hadde fått av forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at
ingen andre kunne publisere kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på
"Statute of Anne" 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="id2909259" href="#ftn.id2909259" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På grunn av denne
+på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2644439" href="#ftn.id2644439" 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?
</p><p>
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="id2909299"></a>
+en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker. <a class="indexterm" name="id2644479"></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
fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
lov til å lage filmer. "Kopi-retten" var bare en eksklusiv rett til å
trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
909444"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
644624"></a><p>
Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
en lang og stygg erfaring med "eksklusive rettigheter," spesielt "enerett"
gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot
solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en monopolskinntekt. Men
monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem som "gamle
patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten"; de var "menn som derfor
-ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."<sup>[<a name="id2909508" href="#ftn.id2909508" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
+ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."<sup>[<a name="id2644688" href="#ftn.id2644688" 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="id2909586" href="#ftn.id2909586" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2644766" href="#ftn.id2644766" 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: "Statute of Anne" ga
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, "var utgiverne … like
-bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."<sup>[<a name="id2908086" href="#ftn.id2908086" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
+bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."<sup>[<a name="id2643266" href="#ftn.id2643266" 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="id2909675" href="#ftn.id2909675" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2644855" href="#ftn.id2644855" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons "the Conger". Han startet in karriere i
Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av standardverk
-falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".<sup>[<a name="id2909698" href="#ftn.id2909698" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for
+falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".<sup>[<a name="id2644877" href="#ftn.id2644877" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for
litterære skotter." "Blant dem," skriver professor Mark Rose, var "den unge
James Boswell som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel
-antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."<sup>[<a name="id2909723" href="#ftn.id2909723" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2909732"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2909738"></a>
+antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."<sup>[<a name="id2644903" href="#ftn.id2644903" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2644911"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2644917"></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 "de mest
populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
-eiendom." <sup>[<a name="id2909755" href="#ftn.id2909755" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var mellom 30%
+eiendom." <sup>[<a name="id2644935" href="#ftn.id2644935" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var mellom 30%
og 50% billigere enn "the Conger"s, og han baserte sin rett til denne
konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være "Statute of Anne", var falt i det
fri.
"Statute of Anne", 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 "Statute of Anne"
-sa.<sup>[<a name="id2909801" href="#ftn.id2909801" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
+sa.<sup>[<a name="id2644981" href="#ftn.id2644981" 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
909868"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645048"></a><p>
Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
909883"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645063"></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="id2909896" href="#ftn.id2909896" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2645076" href="#ftn.id2645076" 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
kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble 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="id2909993"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2909999"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2910006"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2910012"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2910018"></a>
+Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var frie. <a class="indexterm" name="id2645173"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2645179"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2645185"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2645191"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2645198"></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
<em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev "Ingen privatsak har noen
gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt prøvet i
Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker." "Stor glede i Edinburgh
-etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.<sup>[<a name="id2910047" href="#ftn.id2910047" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
+etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.<sup>[<a name="id2645226" href="#ftn.id2645226" 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="id2909650" href="#ftn.id2909650" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2644830" href="#ftn.id2644830" 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.id2909192" href="#id2909192" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644371" href="#id2644371" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære
kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, og
John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: "Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,"
<em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424-31.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909222" href="#id2909222" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644401" href="#id2644401" 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.id2909259" href="#id2909259" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644439" href="#id2644439" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
en "opphavsrettslov." Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2909270"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909508" href="#id2909508" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
+Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id2644449"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644688" href="#id2644688" 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.id2909586" href="#id2909586" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644766" href="#id2644766" 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.id2908086" href="#id2908086" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2643266" href="#id2643266" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
Lyman Ray Patterson, "Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,"
<em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2909232"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909675" href="#id2909675" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2644411"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644855" href="#id2644855" 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.id2909698" href="#id2909698" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644877" href="#id2644877" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
-University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id2909705"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909723" href="#id2909723" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
+University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="id2644885"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644903" href="#id2644903" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909755" href="#id2909755" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644935" href="#id2644935" 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.id2909801" href="#id2909801" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644981" href="#id2644981" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909896" href="#id2909896" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2645076" href="#id2645076" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2910047" href="#id2910047" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2645226" href="#id2645226" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909650" href="#id2909650" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2644830" href="#id2644830" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
*stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
-scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2910198"></a>
+scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2645378"></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="id2910260"></a>
+programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2645439"></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="id2910280"></a>
+sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2645460"></a>
</p><p>
Deretter, fortalte Else: "skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi … at
Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk — ihvertfall at noen [hos Fox]
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="id2910356"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2910363"></a>
+Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2645536"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2645542"></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
kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge loven.
</p><p>
Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
-første tanke "rimelig bruk".<sup>[<a name="id2910421" href="#ftn.id2910421" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk
+første tanke "rimelig bruk".<sup>[<a name="id2645600" href="#ftn.id2645600" 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 "rimelig
bruk" av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>— og "rimelig bruk" krever
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.id2910421" href="#id2910421" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2645600" href="#id2645600" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er "fair use", og
F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> " (utkast arkivert hos forfatteren),
University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2910610"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2910616"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2645789"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2645796"></a><p>
In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an
innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
anticipation of the power of networks.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
910631"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645811"></a><p>
Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
emerging market for CD-ROM technology—not to distribute film, but to
do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult. In 1993, he
work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
and interviews with figures important to his career.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
910640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645819"></a><p>
At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
permission for that content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
910674"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645853"></a><p>
Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. "Our goal was
that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's films," Alben
told me. It was here that the problem arose. "No one had ever really done
this before," Alben explained. "No one had ever tried to do this in the
context of an artistic look at an actor's career."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
910689"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645869"></a><p>
Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave. Slade asked,
"Well, what will it take?"
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
910700"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645880"></a><p>
Alben replied, "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." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."<sup>[<a name="id2910712" href="#ftn.id2910712" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
+use in these film clips." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."<sup>[<a name="id2645892" href="#ftn.id2645892" 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
910773"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645952"></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, "Hey, can I pay you $600
</p><p>
It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later—"and even then we weren't
sure whether we were totally in the clear."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
910810"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
645990"></a><p>
Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
and it sold very well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
910846"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2910851"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
646025"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2646031"></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, "There is nothing so
useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
-all."<sup>[<a name="id2910864" href="#ftn.id2910864" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked Alben,
+all."<sup>[<a name="id2646044" href="#ftn.id2646044" 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, "very few … have the time and resources, and
a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to cost
me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for money," then
it becomes difficult to put one of these things together.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
910954"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
646126"></a><p>
Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
<em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
911007"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
646179"></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: "Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp brutt
i dette rommet?"
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
911027"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
646199"></a><p>
For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law. Of course,
politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
-and music. <a class="indexterm" name="id2911069"></a>
+and music. <a class="indexterm" name="id2646227"></a>
</p><p>
All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
to be "legal," the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
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.id2910712" href="#id2910712" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2645892" href="#id2645892" 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 "Rip, Mix, Burn" creativity, as
-this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2910642"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2910864" href="#id2910864" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
+this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id2645821"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2646044" href="#id2646044" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
<em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
In April 1996, millions of "bots"—computer codes designed to "spider,"
or automatically search the Internet and copy content—began running
across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information
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="id2911242" href="#ftn.id2911242" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
+forget.<sup>[<a name="id2646407" href="#ftn.id2646407" 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
other than that, [television] is almost unavailable," Kahle told me. "If you
were Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are
just a graduate student?" As Kahle put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
911343"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
646514"></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 "borrowed back." 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="id2911306" href="#ftn.id2911306" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
+company.<sup>[<a name="id2646477" href="#ftn.id2646477" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
access to this important part of our culture. Want to see a copy of the
"Duck and Cover" film that instructed children how to save themselves in the
middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can download the film
-in a few minutes—for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2911419"></a>
+in a few minutes—for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2646590"></a>
</p><p>
Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
even if that information is no longer sold.
</p><p>
The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
-quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2911519" href="#ftn.id2911519" 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="id2646695" href="#ftn.id2646695" 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
"content" that is collected in these digital spaces is also someone's
"property." And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and
others would exercise.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2911242" href="#id2911242" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2646407" href="#id2646407" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
stated, "Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." That was later changed,
without notice, to "Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." E-mail from
Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2911306" href="#id2911306" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2646477" href="#id2646477" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
Doug Herrick, "Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at the
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.id2911519" href="#id2911519" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2646695" href="#id2646695" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
Dave Barns, "Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar
between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony
Reese, "The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,"
<em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title=
'Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title=
"10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>10. Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>”</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
administration—literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
-Washington. <a class="indexterm" name="id2911628"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2911674"></a>
+Washington. <a class="indexterm" name="id2646804"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2646852"></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="id2911693"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2911700"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2911706"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2911712"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2911718"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2911725"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2911731"></a>
+Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. <a class="indexterm" name="id2646871"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2646878"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2646884"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2646890"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2646896"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2646903"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2646909"></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="id2911787" href="#ftn.id2911787" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
+debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2646965" href="#ftn.id2646965" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
Washington.
</p><p>
While "creative property" is certainly "property" in a nerdy and precise
-sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<sup>[<a name="id2911839" href="#ftn.id2911839" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that "creative
+sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<sup>[<a name="id2647017" href="#ftn.id2647017" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that "creative
property owners" have been "accorded the same rights and protection resident
in all other property owners." Indeed, if creative property owners were
given the same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a
perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
the right or regulation.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
-by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id2911746"></a>
+by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id2646925"></a>
</p><p>
Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
-in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2912168" href="#ftn.id2912168" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
+in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2647346" href="#ftn.id2647346" 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
912188"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
647376"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
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="id2912232" href="#ftn.id2912232" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
-</p><div class="section" title="10.1.
Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><p>
+modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2647410" href="#ftn.id2647410" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
+</p><div class="section" title="10.1.
Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><p>
The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
sense.
</p><p>
Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
results.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
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, this mix of
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."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
912426"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
647605"></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="id2912441" href="#ftn.id2912441" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
+cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2647620" href="#ftn.id2647620" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
patents, "established companies have an interest in excluding future
-competitors."<sup>[<a name="id2912492" href="#ftn.id2912492" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
+competitors."<sup>[<a name="id2647670" href="#ftn.id2647670" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2912511"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2647689"></a>
</p><p>
Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
-increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id2912588"></a>
+increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id2647766"></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
912606"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
647784"></a><p>
But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
-reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2912622"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2912628"></a>
+reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2647800"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2647806"></a>
</p><p>
No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
appeals when he argues that we need an "environmentalism" for
-culture.<sup>[<a name="id2912657" href="#ftn.id2912657" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
+culture.<sup>[<a name="id2647835" href="#ftn.id2647835" 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 "for free." The point is that some of the
</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
912702"></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
647879"></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 "creative
property" rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English aim to
enriching publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
</p><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
-chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
+chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.6. "Opphavsrett" i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt='"Opphavsrett" i dag.'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.6. "Opphavsrett" i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt='"Opphavsrett" i dag.'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
La meg forklare hvordan.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.3.
Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.3.
Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
-rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2912860" href="#ftn.id2912860" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
+rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2648038" href="#ftn.id2648038" 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="id2912932" href="#ftn.id2912932" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
+14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2648110" href="#ftn.id2648110" 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="id2912998" href="#ftn.id2912998" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
+work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2648176" href="#ftn.id2648176" 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="id2913027" href="#ftn.id2913027" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
+print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2648205" href="#ftn.id2648205" 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="id2913122" href="#ftn.id2913122" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.4.
Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Virkeområde</h2></div></div></div><p>
+the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2648300" href="#ftn.id2648300" 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 "scope" of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law. The
scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those changes are not
necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the changes if we're
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="id2913246" href="#ftn.id2913246" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
+United States.<sup>[<a name="id2648424" href="#ftn.id2648424" 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="id2913328" href="#ftn.id2913328" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
+protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2648505" href="#ftn.id2648505" 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="id2913374" href="#ftn.id2913374" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
+book.<sup>[<a name="id2648552" href="#ftn.id2648552" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
creative work are treated the same.
</p><p>
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
originally granted.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.5.
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.5.
Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
-and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2913431" href="#ftn.id2913431" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
+and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2648608" href="#ftn.id2648608" 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="id2913492" href="#ftn.id2913492" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
+copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2648670" href="#ftn.id2648670" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
law.
</p><p>
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
circle.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
law, because those acts do not make a copy.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1531.png" alt="Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1531.png" alt="Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
</p><p>
Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som "rimelig bruk".
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
copyrighted work.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1541.png" alt="Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated. You
the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
over such "fair uses" for public policy (and possibly First Amendment)
reasons.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt='Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt='Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
regulated.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1551.png" alt="Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
are nonetheless deemed "fair" regardless of the copyright 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="id2913438" href="#ftn.id2913438" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
+copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2648616" href="#ftn.id2648616" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.6.
Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.6.
Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
913954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
649124"></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="id2914001" href="#ftn.id2914001" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
+juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2649171" href="#ftn.id2649171" 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 "var brødre lenge før dere var
-det".<sup>[<a name="id2914022" href="#ftn.id2914022" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor ordet
+det".<sup>[<a name="id2649192" href="#ftn.id2649192" 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
914080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2914088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
649250"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2649258"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form. En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
domain. Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1611.png" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1611.png" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
computer.
</p><p>
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
-Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id2914213"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2914219"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"</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>
+Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id2649383"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2649389"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 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.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt='List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt='List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
boken!
</p><p>
the publisher has the power to 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="id2914298" href="#ftn.id2914298" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my
+is no such copyright power.<sup>[<a name="id2649469" href="#ftn.id2649469" 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
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 "Warner Brothers," erased "Brothers" from the sentence.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2914354"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2649525"></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="id2914404"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2649576"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the "permissions"
indicated, not allowed to "read aloud"!
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
914479"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
649657"></a><p>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
of mine that makes the same point.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
built.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
914605"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2914613"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2914621"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
649783"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2649791"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2649799"></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="id2914667" href="#ftn.id2914667" 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="id2649855" href="#ftn.id2649855" 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
914826"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2914834"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2914842"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
650020"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2650028"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2650036"></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
914920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2914926"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2914933"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
650114"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2650120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2650127"></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
914977"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
650164"></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
"<em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>," for example, had testified in that case
that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2914997"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2650184"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
"Neighborhood" at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it's
important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions."
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="id2915024" href="#ftn.id2915024" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
+way, is important.<sup>[<a name="id2650211" href="#ftn.id2650211" 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="id2915064"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2650252"></a>
</p><p>
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
</p><p>
such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
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
e 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
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="id2915123"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
915130"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2915136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2915143"></a><p>
+guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do. <a class="indexterm" name="id2650310"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
650318"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2650324"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2650330"></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="id2915207" href="#ftn.id2915207" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
+continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2650394" href="#ftn.id2650394" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
is, in effect, what is happening here.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.7.
Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.7.
Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
So copyright's duration has increased dramatically—tripled in the past
thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well—from
</p><p>
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, "five
-companies control 85 percent of our media sources."<sup>[<a name="id2915315" href="#ftn.id2915315" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording labels of Universal Music Group,
+companies control 85 percent of our media sources."<sup>[<a name="id2650503" href="#ftn.id2650503" 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="id2915327" href="#ftn.id2915327" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The
+percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2650515" href="#ftn.id2650515" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The
"five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable
-subscribers nationwide."<sup>[<a name="id2915340" href="#ftn.id2915340" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915351"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915356"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2915363"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915369"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915375"></a>
+subscribers nationwide."<sup>[<a name="id2650528" href="#ftn.id2650528" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2650538"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2650544"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2650550"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2650556"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2650562"></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="id2915417"></a>
+article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2650594"></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="id2915432" href="#ftn.id2915432" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
+system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2650619" href="#ftn.id2650619" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
thousand words could do:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe? Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
</p><p>
Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
er viktig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
915511"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2915518"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2915524"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
650698"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2650704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2650710"></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="id2915557" href="#ftn.id2915557" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
+nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2650744" href="#ftn.id2650744" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last year,
the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
quintupled to 77 percent." "In 1992, 16 new series were produced
-independently of conglomerate control, last year there was one."<sup>[<a name="id2915587" href="#ftn.id2915587" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was
+independently of conglomerate control, last year there was one."<sup>[<a name="id2650774" href="#ftn.id2650774" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was
owned by the networks that ran it. "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%."<sup>[<a name="id2915630" href="#ftn.id2915630" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
915638"></a><p>
+hours per week produced by independent studios decreased 63%."<sup>[<a name="id2650817" href="#ftn.id2650817" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
650825"></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="id2915661"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915668"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2650849"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2650855"></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="id2915686" href="#ftn.id2915686" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
+you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2650873" href="#ftn.id2650873" 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
915710"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
650897"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the "Innovator's
Dilemma": 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="id2915738" href="#ftn.id2915738" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only don't, but should not,
+would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<sup>[<a name="id2650925" href="#ftn.id2650925" 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="id2915766"></a>
+little sprinting. <a class="indexterm" name="id2650954"></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="id2915869" href="#ftn.id2915869" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
+defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2651056" href="#ftn.id2651056" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well—if we lived in a
media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="10.8.
Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="10.8.
Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
warriors that the government should "protect my property." In the abstract,
it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No sane sort who is
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="id2916073" href="#ftn.id2916073" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
+known.<sup>[<a name="id2651260" href="#ftn.id2651260" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
</p><p>
also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
-chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
-<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
+chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
+<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
transformation. More commercial transformative work would be created if
derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
copyright is a kind of "property," 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="id2916423" href="#ftn.id2916423" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>) has been crafted to balance the important need to
+historically, this property right (as with all property rights<sup>[<a name="id2651610" href="#ftn.id2651610" 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 tradition, the "copyright"
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.id2911787" href="#id2911787" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2646965" href="#id2646965" 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.id2911839" href="#id2911839" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2647017" href="#id2647017" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
Lawyers speak of "property" not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle of
ordinary meaning of "property" to "lawyer talk," 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.id2912168" href="#id2912168" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2647346" href="#id2647346" 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, "The New Chicago School," <em class="citetitle">Journal of Legal
Studies</em>, June 1998.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2912232" href="#id2912232" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2647410" href="#id2647410" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
Some people object to this way of talking about "liberty." They object
because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any
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="id2912280"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2912288"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2912441" href="#id2912441" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
+liberty that each of these groups might face. <a class="indexterm" name="id2647458"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2647467"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2647620" href="#id2647620" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
See Geoffrey Smith, "Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?"
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
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #24</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2912492" href="#id2912492" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2647670" href="#id2647670" 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.id2912657" href="#id2912657" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2647835" href="#id2647835" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
Se for eksempel James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
Environmentalism for the Net?" <em class="citetitle">Duke Law Journal</em> 47
(1997): 87.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2912860" href="#id2912860" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648038" href="#id2648038" 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: "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>" (emphasis
-added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2912876"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2912932" href="#id2912932" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
+added). <a class="indexterm" name="id2648054"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648110" href="#id2648110" 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.id2912998" href="#id2912998" 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.id2648176" href="#id2648176" 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, "Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,"
<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.id2913027" href="#id2913027" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
+498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648205" href="#id2648205" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2913122" href="#id2913122" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648300" href="#id2648300" 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,
"Indefinitely Renewable Copyright," loc. cit.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2913246" href="#id2913246" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648424" href="#id2648424" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, "Poets, Pirates, and the Creation of
International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James Gilraeth,
ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O., 1987).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2913328" href="#id2913328" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648505" href="#id2648505" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage," <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="id2913355"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2913374" href="#id2913374" 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="id2648533"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648552" href="#id2648552" 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 "copies" and derivative works. See Jed
Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality,"
<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112 (2002): 1–60 (see
-especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id2913385"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2913431" href="#id2913431" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
+especially pp. 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="id2648563"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648608" href="#id2648608" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
Code</em>, section 112(a). But the presumption under the existing law
(which regulates "copies;" 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.id2913492" href="#id2913492" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648670" href="#id2648670" 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.id2913438" href="#id2913438" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2648616" href="#id2648616" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
I don't mean "nature" in the sense that it couldn't be different, but rather
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.id2914001" href="#id2914001" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2649171" href="#id2649171" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
Se David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," <em class="citetitle">Law and
Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172–73.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2914022" href="#id2914022" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2649192" href="#id2649192" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2914013"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2914298" href="#id2914298" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
+Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2649183"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2649469" href="#id2649469" 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.id2914667" href="#id2914667" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2649855" href="#id2649855" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
See Pamela Samuelson, "Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,"
<em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, "Play
Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Frequently Asked Questions about
<em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
Legal Case," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2914704"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2915024" href="#id2915024" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
+#27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2649892"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650211" href="#id2650211" 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="id2914030"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2915207" href="#id2915207" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
+(New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71. <a class="indexterm" name="id2649200"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650394" href="#id2650394" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, "Legal Fictions,
Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law," <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los
Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17 (1997): 651.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2915315" href="#id2915315" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650503" href="#id2650503" 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.id2915327" href="#id2915327" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
+of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650515" href="#id2650515" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
Lynette Holloway, "Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to Slide,"
<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2915340" href="#id2915340" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650528" href="#id2650528" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
Molly Ivins, "Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped," <em class="citetitle">Charleston
Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2915432" href="#id2915432" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650619" href="#id2650619" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em>
-(September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2915448"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2915557" href="#id2915557" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
+(September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2650634"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650744" href="#id2650744" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
Leonard Hill, "The Axis of Access," remarks before Weidenbaum Center Forum,
"Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry," 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.id2915587" href="#id2915587" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650774" href="#id2650774" 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.id2915630" href="#id2915630" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650817" href="#id2650817" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2915686" href="#id2915686" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650873" href="#id2650873" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
"Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," <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.id2915738" href="#id2915738" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2650925" href="#id2650925" 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.id2915869" href="#id2915869" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
+2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2651056" href="#id2651056" 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
transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel
buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, "Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni
Rejects Ad," 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 "too controversial." <a class="indexterm" name="id2915917"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915925"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915932"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915938"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2915944"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2915950"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2916073" href="#id2916073" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
+the criticism was "too controversial." <a class="indexterm" name="id2651104"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2651113"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2651119"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2651125"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2651131"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2651138"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2651260" href="#id2651260" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans "fire kapitulasjoner" for
opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2915895"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2916423" href="#id2916423" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2651082"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2651610" href="#id2651610" 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, "The Disintegration of Property,"
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="id2916435"></a>
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Del III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Del III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
+W. Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, 1980). <a class="indexterm" name="id2651622"></a>
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Part III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Part III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
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="id2916561" href="#ftn.id2916561" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
+the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2651749" href="#ftn.id2651749" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
extraordinarily beautiful, with "sweet water, pasture, an even climate,
slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent
fruit." But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an
possibility is an underused plot for murder mysteries. "But the DNA shows
with 100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at
the scene. …"
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
916657"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2916665"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
651844"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2651852"></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
a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with it,"
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="id2916691"></a>
+take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower. <a class="indexterm" name="id2651878"></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="id2916760" href="#ftn.id2916760" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
+been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2651948" href="#ftn.id2651948" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
916853"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
652031"></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="id2916938" href="#ftn.id2916938" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
+everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2652125" href="#ftn.id2652125" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of "the
-major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2916960"></a>
+major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id2652148"></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.id2916561" href="#id2916561" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2651749" href="#id2651749" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (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.id2916760" href="#id2916760" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2651948" href="#id2651948" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, "Copyright
example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the
subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer identities,
see James Collins, "RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,"
-<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="id2916836"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2916844"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2916938" href="#id2916938" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2652015"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2652023"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2652125" href="#id2652125" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
-in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
+in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File. </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
To fight "piracy," to protect "property," the content industry has launched
a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
the property called "intellectual property" is at its greatest in our
history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
917010"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2917016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
652198"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2652204"></a><p>
Yet "common sense" 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 "piracy"
the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
today's monopolists of culture.
-</p><div class="section" title="12.1.
Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="12.1.
Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com—which
defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
market capitalization of over $200 billion—received a fine of a mere
-$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2917132" href="#ftn.id2917132" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
+$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2652320" href="#ftn.id2652320" 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="id2917168" href="#ftn.id2917168" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
+damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2652356" href="#ftn.id2652356" 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="id2917205"></a>
+negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2652392"></a>
</p><p>
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
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 "illegal art" tour the United
-States.<sup>[<a name="id2916744" href="#ftn.id2916744" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In what does their "illegality"
+States.<sup>[<a name="id2651931" href="#ftn.id2651931" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In what does their "illegality"
consist? In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that
is critical or reflective.
</p><p>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
-law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
+law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
them is not similarly free.
</p><p>
Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
-in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
+in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
from a lawyer saying, "This has been cleared." You're not even going to get
it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at which they
control it.
-</p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2.
Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2.
Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story—creativity
quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
917400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
652588"></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 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
+that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
from last generation's dominant industries. That lesson has been taught
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
<em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
917452"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
652640"></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="id2917475"></a>
+so on. <a class="indexterm" name="id2652670"></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
917579"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2917587"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2917594"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2917600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
652774"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2652782"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2652788"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2652794"></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="id2917613" href="#ftn.id2917613" 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="id2652808" href="#ftn.id2652808" 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="id2917652"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2917659"></a>
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
917668"></a><p>
+Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2652847"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2652853"></a>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2
652863"></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="id2917363" href="#ftn.id2917363" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
+sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <sup>[<a name="id2652551" href="#ftn.id2652551" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Dette er verden til mafiaen—fylt med "penger eller livet"-trusler, som
ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som loven gir
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="id2917818" href="#ftn.id2917818" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
+or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2653002" href="#ftn.id2653002" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> 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.<sup>[<a name="id2917841" href="#ftn.id2917841" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
+copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2653024" href="#ftn.id2653024" 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="id2917864" href="#ftn.id2917864" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
+impose.<sup>[<a name="id2653048" href="#ftn.id2653048" 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="id2917875"></a>
+protection should not do more harm than good. <a class="indexterm" name="id2653059"></a>
</p><p>
There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
innovation—again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
</p><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
-<em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2917910" href="#ftn.id2917910" 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="id2653094" href="#ftn.id2653094" 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="id2917946" href="#ftn.id2917946" 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="id2653129" href="#ftn.id2653129" 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="id2917981" href="#ftn.id2917981" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
+here.<sup>[<a name="id2653164" href="#ftn.id2653164" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
radio.
</p><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title='Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'>4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="4. Kapittel fire: “Pirater”">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
doesn't get paid for that "radio performance" unless he or she is also the
composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a version of "Happy
Birthday"—to memorialize her famous performance before President
Kennedy at Madison Square Garden— then whenever that recording was
played on the radio, the current copyright owners of "Happy Birthday" would
-get some money, whereas Marilyn Monroe would not. <a class="indexterm" name="id2918037"></a>
+get some money, whereas Marilyn Monroe would not. <a class="indexterm" name="id2653220"></a>
</p><p>
The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
-shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2917684" href="#ftn.id2917684" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
+shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2652878" href="#ftn.id2652878" 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
-"vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"<sup>[<a name="id2917886" href="#ftn.id2917886" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
+"vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"<sup>[<a name="id2653070" href="#ftn.id2653070" 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="id2918180" href="#ftn.id2918180" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
+year.<sup>[<a name="id2653377" href="#ftn.id2653377" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
</p><p>
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
the motive to protect artists against piracy?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
918396"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2918402"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
653593"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2653599"></a><p>
In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
Real Networks, told me,
the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="12.3.
Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="12.3.
Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
-million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2918490" href="#ftn.id2918490" 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="id2653687" href="#ftn.id2653687" 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="id2918171" href="#ftn.id2918171" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
+file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2653367" href="#ftn.id2653367" 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="id2918564" href="#ftn.id2918564" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
+were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2653761" href="#ftn.id2653761" 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="id2918578" href="#ftn.id2918578" 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="id2653774" href="#ftn.id2653774" 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="id2918594" href="#ftn.id2918594" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our "free society," but an
+that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2653791" href="#ftn.id2653791" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our "free society," 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="id2918610"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2653807"></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
over. Generations of Americans—more significantly in some parts of
America than in others, but still, everywhere in America today—can't
live their lives both normally and legally, since "normally" entails a
-certain degree of illegality. <a class="indexterm" name="id2918530"></a>
+certain degree of illegality. <a class="indexterm" name="id2653726"></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
records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed, Apple Corporation went so far as
to suggest that "freedom" was a right: In a series of commercials, Apple
endorsed the "Rip, Mix, Burn" capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
918736"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
653922"></a><p>
This "use" 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 called
attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the "collateral damage" that
"arises whenever you turn a very large percentage of the population into
criminals." This is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2918841"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2654027"></a>
</p><p>
"Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter," forklarer von Lohmann,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2918854"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2654040"></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="id2918906" href="#ftn.id2918906" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
+these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2580078" href="#ftn.id2580078" 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="id2918946" href="#ftn.id2918946" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
+to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2580121" href="#ftn.id2580121" 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 "fingerprint."
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 "criminal." And under the rules that universities are beginning to
-deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2918804" href="#ftn.id2918804" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the
+deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2653990" href="#ftn.id2653990" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the
right to use the university's computer network. She can, in some cases, be
expelled.
</p><p>
university might not believe her. It might treat this "contraband" 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="id2919041"></a>
+prohibition. This war is no different. Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2580218"></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
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.id2917132" href="#id2917132" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2652320" href="#id2652320" 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, "MCI Wins
U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement" (7. juli 2003),
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2917155"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2917168" href="#id2917168" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
+#37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2652343"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2652356" href="#id2652356" 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, "Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,' Say
Tort Reformers," amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and "Senate Turns Back
Malpractice Caps," 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="id2917192"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2916744" href="#id2916744" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
+continued to urge tort reform in recent months. <a class="indexterm" name="id2652379"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2651931" href="#id2651931" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
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.id2917613" href="#id2917613" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2652808" href="#id2652808" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
See Joseph Menn, "Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor," <em class="citetitle">Los
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>. See also
Jon Healey, "Online Music Services Besieged," <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2917363" href="#id2917363" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2652551" href="#id2652551" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
Rafe Needleman, "Driving in Cars with MP3s," <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="id2917701"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2917818" href="#id2917818" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
+Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2652895"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653002" href="#id2653002" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
"Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World," 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.id2917841" href="#id2917841" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653024" href="#id2653024" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2917864" href="#id2917864" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653048" href="#id2653048" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes, February
2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2917910" href="#id2917910" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653094" href="#id2653094" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
-Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id2917917"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2917946" href="#id2917946" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
+Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id2653101"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653129" href="#id2653129" 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.id2917981" href="#id2917981" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653164" href="#id2653164" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act,
which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital media
devices. See GartnerG2, "Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
-World," 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="id2917989"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2918014"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2917684" href="#id2917684" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
+World," 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="id2653186"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2653197"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2652878" href="#id2652878" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2917886" href="#id2917886" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653070" href="#id2653070" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2918180" href="#id2918180" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653377" href="#id2653377" 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
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." <a class="indexterm" name="id2918210"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2918219"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2918490" href="#id2918490" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
+way." <a class="indexterm" name="id2653406"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2653416"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653687" href="#id2653687" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, "The Music Downloading Deluge," 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.id2918171" href="#id2918171" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653367" href="#id2653367" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
Alex Pham, "The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,"
<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003, Business.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2918564" href="#id2918564" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653761" href="#id2653761" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, "Alcohol Consumption During
Prohibition," <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81, no. 2
(1991): 242.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2918578" href="#id2918578" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653774" href="#id2653774" 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.id2918594" href="#id2918594" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653791" href="#id2653791" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, "Tax Compliance,"
<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.id2918906" href="#id2918906" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580078" href="#id2580078" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
See Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, "Is Brianna a Criminal?"
<em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2918946" href="#id2918946" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580121" href="#id2580121" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
See "Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses Some
Methods Used," CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2918804" href="#id2918804" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2653990" href="#id2653990" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
See Jeff Adler, "Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,"
<em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; "Raid,
Letters Are Weapons at Universities," <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
September 2000, 3D.
-</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Del IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Del IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="
Part IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Part IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
hvordan du slokker den. Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten. Vi
må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
å lykkes.
-</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
(<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
919286"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
654756"></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
publishing industry," 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="id2919306" href="#ftn.id2919306" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
+culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2654776" href="#ftn.id2654776" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
-library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, in 1998, for the
+library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, in 1998, for the
eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
copyrights—this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019. Indeed, no
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
-Mary Bono, says, believed that "copyrights should be forever."<sup>[<a name="id2919361" href="#ftn.id2919361" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
+Mary Bono, says, believed that "copyrights should be forever."<sup>[<a name="id2654846" href="#ftn.id2654846" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
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 "on the installment plan," as Professor Peter
-Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2919386"></a>
+Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id2654872"></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 "theory" 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="id2919581" href="#ftn.id2919581" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent over $1.5 million
+of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2655057" href="#ftn.id2655057" 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="id2919596" href="#ftn.id2919596" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is
+campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2655072" href="#ftn.id2655072" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is
estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in
-the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2919611" href="#ftn.id2919611" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
+the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2655087" href="#ftn.id2655087" 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
919676"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
655152"></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>
"We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments," the
-Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2919707" href="#ftn.id2919707" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything
+Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2655193" href="#ftn.id2655193" 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="id2919734" href="#ftn.id2919734" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
+v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2655220" href="#ftn.id2655220" 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="id2919754" href="#ftn.id2919754" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2655240" href="#ftn.id2655240" 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 "stopping point" to
</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 "legal piracy."<sup>[<a name="id2919833" href="#ftn.id2919833" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our
+domain is nothing more than "legal piracy."<sup>[<a name="id2655319" href="#ftn.id2655319" 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="id2919858"></a>
+pirate's charter. <a class="indexterm" name="id2655344"></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="id2919900" href="#ftn.id2919900" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
+generally.<sup>[<a name="id2655386" href="#ftn.id2655386" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
creative works is much more dire.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
920022"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2920028"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2920034"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
655508"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2655514"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2655520"></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
after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
of money. According to one estimate, "Roach has sold about 60,000
-videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent films."<sup>[<a name="id2920056" href="#ftn.id2920056" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920073"></a>
+videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent films."<sup>[<a name="id2655542" href="#ftn.id2655542" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2655559"></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="id2920110" href="#ftn.id2920110" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
+cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2655596" href="#ftn.id2655596" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
-value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2920340" href="#ftn.id2920340" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
+value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2655825" href="#ftn.id2655825" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
burde ha vært vunnet. Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
at vi ikke vant.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
920459"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
655945"></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
920482"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2920488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2920494"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
655968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2655974"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2655980"></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
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="id2920600"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920606"></a>
+Schlafly argued. <a class="indexterm" name="id2656085"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2656092"></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="id2920635"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920643"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920650"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920656"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2656121"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2656129"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2656135"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2656142"></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="id2920670"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920677"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
920684"></a><p>
+National Writers Union. <a class="indexterm" name="id2656155"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2656162"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656170"></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
920698"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2920704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2920711"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2920717"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2920723"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2656190"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2656196"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2656203"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2656209"></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="id2920744"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920765"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920771"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2920777"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2656220"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2656251"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2656257"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2656264"></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="id2920798"></a>
+the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. <a class="indexterm" name="id2656284"></a>
</p><p>
The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
well. Significantly, however, none of these "friends" included historians or
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 "glorify
-drugs or to create pornography."<sup>[<a name="id2920828" href="#ftn.id2920828" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That
+drugs or to create pornography."<sup>[<a name="id2656314" href="#ftn.id2656314" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That
was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its "protection"
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="id2920853" href="#ftn.id2920853" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their
+Americans in the cast.<sup>[<a name="id2656339" href="#ftn.id2656339" 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="id2920867"></a>
+wanted this law to help them effect that control. <a class="indexterm" name="id2656353"></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
920893"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656379"></a><p>
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
"the Conservatives." The other we called "the Rest." The Conservatives
included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice
<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
920923"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656409"></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
920958"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656444"></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
921069"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2921075"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656556"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2656562"></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="id2921088"></a>
+of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2656575"></a>
</p><p>
"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."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
921098"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656585"></a><p>
He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
under the copyright laws.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
921224"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656711"></a><p>
That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
will respect, that is the system we have.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
921415"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656902"></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
921434"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
656920"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself. For I
had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
it is.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
921533"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
657020"></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
921575"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
657062"></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="id2921586"></a>
+Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2657073"></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. "The Court is not ready," Peter Jaszi said; this issue should
-not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2921618"></a>
+not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id2657104"></a>
</p><p>
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
images—of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
-case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figur 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>). The "powerful and wealthy" line is a bit unfair. But
-the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2921677"></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="id2921698"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figure 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>). The "powerful and wealthy" line is a bit unfair. But
+the punch in the face felt exactly like that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2657164"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur
e 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2657184"></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 "grand experiment" we call
the "public domain" is over? When I can make light of it, I think, "Honey, 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.id2919306" href="#id2919306" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2654776" href="#id2654776" 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.id2919361" href="#id2919361" 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.id2654846" href="#id2654846" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
The full text is: "Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to
also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress," 144
Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2919581" href="#id2919581" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655057" href="#id2655057" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
Associated Press, "Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey Mouse
Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,"
<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2919596" href="#id2919596" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655072" href="#id2655072" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
Se Nick Brown, "Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information Age,"
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.id2919611" href="#id2919611" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655087" href="#id2655087" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
Alan K. Ota, "Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,"
<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.id2919707" href="#id2919707" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655193" href="#id2655193" 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.id2919734" href="#id2919734" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655220" href="#id2655220" 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.id2919754" href="#id2919754" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655240" href="#id2655240" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
copyrights—the limitation to "limited times" notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2919833" href="#id2919833" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655319" href="#id2655319" 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.id2919900" href="#id2919900" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655386" href="#id2655386" 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.id2920056" href="#id2920056" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655542" href="#id2655542" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
See David G. Savage, "High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,"
"Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today
on Striking Down Copyright Extension," <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2920110" href="#id2920110" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655596" href="#id2655596" 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.id2920340" href="#id2920340" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2655825" href="#id2655825" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
Jason Schultz, "The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory," 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.id2920828" href="#id2920828" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2656314" href="#id2656314" 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.id2920853" href="#id2920853" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2656339" href="#id2656339" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
Dinitia Smith, "Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse Joins
the Fray," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March 1998, B7.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied—meaning the case was really
technologists at Disney World.) This was a particularly long flight to my
least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
921741"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
657228"></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
copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking 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
921797"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
657284"></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
921831"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2921837"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
657318"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2657324"></a><p>
-As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
-before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2921854" href="#ftn.id2921854" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
+before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2657341" href="#ftn.id2657341" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
Europeans are said to view copyright as a "natural right." Natural rights
don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American tradition
that required copyright owners to follow form if their rights were to be
without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread "Walt Disney
creativity" is destroyed when there is no simple way to know what's
protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
921920"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
657407"></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="id2922022"></a>
+take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id2657509"></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 "get."
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
922118"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
657596"></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, "vi er nære". Det oppstod en
generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje her.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2922151"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2657629"></a>
</p><p>
But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
what Kevin Kelly calls the "Dark Content" that fills archives around the
world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should ask one
-simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id2922257"></a>
+simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id2657735"></a>
</p><p>
Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
</p><p>
competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
creation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
922311"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2922317"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
657788"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2657795"></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
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.id2921854" href="#id2921854" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2657341" href="#id2657341" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
-153–54. </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+153–54. </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara. Sytten
millioner har allerede dødd. Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
afrikansk stat råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
$15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
-utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2922397" href="#ftn.id2922397" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
+utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2657875" href="#ftn.id2657875" 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 "parallellimport" og er generelt tillatt i
internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den europeiske
-union.<sup>[<a name="id2922480" href="#ftn.id2922480" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
+union.<sup>[<a name="id2657957" href="#ftn.id2657957" 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,
"Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika … til å ikke tillate tvungen
-lisensiering eller parallellimport"<sup>[<a name="id2919412" href="#ftn.id2919412" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup>
+lisensiering eller parallellimport"<sup>[<a name="id2654898" href="#ftn.id2654898" 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
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="id2922546" href="#ftn.id2922546" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
+Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2658023" href="#ftn.id2658023" 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="id2922640" href="#ftn.id2922640" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
+eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2658118" href="#ftn.id2658118" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
grunn av at "intellektuell eiendom" ville bli krenket at disse medisinene
ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om viktigheten av
"intellektuell eiendom" som fikk disse myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere
Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke til. Mektige lobbyister,
kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn gir en "perfekt storm" for
fri kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
922817"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
658295"></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="id2922878" href="#ftn.id2922878" 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="id2658355" href="#ftn.id2658355" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere "åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter
for å skape goder for felleskapet". Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å
produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av
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 "åpen kildekode og fri
-programvare". <a class="indexterm" name="id2922948"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2922957"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2922963"></a>
+programvare". <a class="indexterm" name="id2658426"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2658434"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2658440"></a>
</p><p>
Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
</p><p>
Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
-ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2922988" href="#ftn.id2922988" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2658465" href="#ftn.id2658465" 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 "fri programvare"—og IBM er helt klart en kommersiell
aktør. Dermed er det å støtte "fri programvare" 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="id2922823" href="#ftn.id2922823" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2923141"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2923148"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2923154"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2923160"></a>
+programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2658300" href="#ftn.id2658300" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2658619"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2658625"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2658631"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2658638"></a>
</p><p>
Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte "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="id2923224" href="#ftn.id2923224" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
-møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id2923239"></a>
+slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2658701" href="#ftn.id2658701" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
+møtet avlyst. <a class="indexterm" name="id2658716"></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
bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål, 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="id2923368"></a>
+hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span> eiendom. <a class="indexterm" name="id2658845"></a>
</p><p>
Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte "som har som sitt formål
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
923407"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2923413"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
658886"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2658892"></a><p>
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
-vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2923426" href="#ftn.id2923426" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
+vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2658904" href="#ftn.id2658904" 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
923551"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
659030"></a><p>
Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger. Snart. Det finnes
øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
endringen i FCC-reglene. Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
-krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. <a class="indexterm" name="id2923572"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2923578"></a>
+krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. <a class="indexterm" name="id2659051"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2659057"></a>
</p><p>
Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
</p><p>
Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
for våre tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
923671"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
659150"></a><p>
Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
-at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2923684" href="#ftn.id2923684" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
-musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2923730" href="#ftn.id2923730" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
+at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2659162" href="#ftn.id2659162" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
+musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2659208" href="#ftn.id2659208" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
har "stjålet" fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
-over.<sup>[<a name="id2923748" href="#ftn.id2923748" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
+over.<sup>[<a name="id2659226" href="#ftn.id2659226" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym—rapporterer
"en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene. De har fantastisk [gammelt]
innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn av at de
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
923784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2923790"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2923796"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2923802"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
659262"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2659268"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2659274"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2659280"></a><p>
I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
bygge opp et "kreativt arkiv" som britiske borgere kan laste ned BBC-innhold
-fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2923819" href="#ftn.id2923819" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup>
+fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2659297" href="#ftn.id2659297" 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="id2923840" href="#ftn.id2923840" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten er
+innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske landet.<sup>[<a name="id2659318" href="#ftn.id2659318" 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 taper og uten at
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2922397" href="#id2922397" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2657875" href="#id2657875" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, "Final Report: Integrating
Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" (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.id2922480" href="#id2922480" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2657957" href="#id2657957" 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="id2922488"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2922497"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2919412" href="#id2919412" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
+37. <a class="indexterm" name="id2657966"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2657974"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2654898" href="#id2654898" 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.id2922546" href="#id2922546" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2658023" href="#id2658023" 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.id2922640" href="#id2922640" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2658118" href="#id2658118" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis," <em class="citetitle">Widener Law Symposium
Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2922878" href="#id2922878" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2658355" href="#id2658355" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
Jonathan Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," <em class="citetitle">Washington
Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New, "Global
"U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO," <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.id2922988" href="#id2922988" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2658465" href="#id2658465" 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.id2922823" href="#id2922823" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2658300" href="#id2658300" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
#62</a>. Se også Craig Mundie, 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.id2923224" href="#id2923224" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2658701" href="#id2658701" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," 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.id2923426" href="#id2923426" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2658904" href="#id2658904" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
-210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2922540"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2923684" href="#id2923684" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2658018"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2659162" href="#id2659162" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, september 2003,
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
"Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA," <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.id2923730" href="#id2923730" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2659208" href="#id2659208" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
Jon Wiederhorn, "Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old Lady," 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.id2923748" href="#id2923748" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2659226" href="#id2659226" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
Kenji Hall, Associated Press, "Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for Dylan
Songs," 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.id2923819" href="#id2923819" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2659297" href="#id2659297" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
"BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public," 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.id2923840" href="#id2923840" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2659318" href="#id2659318" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
"Creative Commons and Brazil," Creative Commons Weblog, 6. august 2003,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#71</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Kapittel 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
imot, men likevel, det betyr noe. Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
fri kultur.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.1.
Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>16.1. Oss, nå</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.1.
Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>16.1. Oss, nå</h2></div></div></div><p>
Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
been framed at the extremes—as a grand either/or: either property or
anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable creators to free content as
they see fit. In other words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms
that we could just take for granted before.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.1.1.
Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.1.1.
Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
</p><p>
Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
</p><p>
-Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, your privacy was
+Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, your privacy was
assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
(there is no law protecting "privacy" 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
924056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
659534"></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
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 "privacy" protected by the friction
-disappears, too. <a class="indexterm" name="id2924082"></a>
+disappears, too. <a class="indexterm" name="id2659551"></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 "privacy" 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="id2924109" href="#ftn.id2924109" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And whether you're in favor of
+did.<sup>[<a name="id2659578" href="#ftn.id2659578" 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 who believe in privacy to
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="id2924147"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
924158"></a><p>
+about controlling their software. <a class="indexterm" name="id2659616"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
659628"></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
operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
overleve. Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som "Linux"-kjernen til
Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å produsere
-GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2924228"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2924234"></a>
+GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2659697"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2659703"></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="id2924357"></a>
+inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id2659826"></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
924368"></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
659837"></a></div><div class="section" title="16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
</p><p>
movement of consumers and producers of content ("content conducers," as
attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the public domain and, by
their work, demonstrate the importance of the public domain to other
-creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id2924494"></a>
+creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id2659978"></a>
</p><p>
The aim is not to fight the "All Rights Reserved" sorts. The aim is to
complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture are
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="id2924567"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2924575"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
924582"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2924589"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2660050"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2660059"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
660066"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2660072"></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
others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
(Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not "allow" Public
-Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so high<sup>[<a name="id2924603" href="#ftn.id2924603" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release into the creative
+Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so high<sup>[<a name="id2660087" href="#ftn.id2660087" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release into the creative
environment content that others can build upon, so that their form of
-creativity might grow. <a class="indexterm" name="id2924635"></a>
+creativity might grow. <a class="indexterm" name="id2660119"></a>
</p><p>
Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
license just because they want to express to others the importance of
to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
924689"></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
660180"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2. Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms. But
one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
end.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.
1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.
1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed. If
you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
</p><p>
Why?
</p><p>
-As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
+As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
</p><p>
-The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2924793" href="#ftn.id2924793" 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="id2660285" href="#ftn.id2660285" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
</p><p>
something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
approving standards developed by others.
-</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.1.
Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
+</p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.1.
Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
of this formality—while producing a database of registrations that
would facilitate the licensing of content.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.1.2.
Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>16.2.1.2. Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.1.2.
Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>16.2.1.2. Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
failing to comply with a regulatory rule—akin to imposing the death
not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
-permission.<sup>[<a name="id2924917" href="#ftn.id2924917" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
+permission.<sup>[<a name="id2660408" href="#ftn.id2660408" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
work would therefore be "use unless someone complains." 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 uses. This
simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
the appropriate time.
-</p></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2.2.
2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2.2.
2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
for individuelle forfattere.
after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
-fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2925042" href="#ftn.id2925042" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
+fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2660533" href="#ftn.id2660533" 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="id2925129" href="#ftn.id2925129" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
+for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2660627" href="#ftn.id2660627" 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="id2925149"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2660646"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
kaller jeg dem "ekstremister".) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var
lengre enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor "radikalt" 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><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3.
3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><p>
As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
</p><p>
Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
-dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2925244" href="#ftn.id2925244" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
+dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2660741" href="#ftn.id2660741" 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="id2925258"></a>
+Benjamin Kaplan. <a class="indexterm" name="id2660756"></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="id2925274" href="#ftn.id2925274" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
+abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2660772" href="#ftn.id2660772" 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="id2925304"></a>
+after the creative work is done. <a class="indexterm" name="id2660802"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
be narrowed. Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
</p><p>
In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
the presumption should be that other uses are not protected. This is the
-reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2925347" href="#ftn.id2925347" 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="id2660845" href="#ftn.id2660845" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
expanded protections follow expanded uses.
</p><p>
Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
would earn artists more income.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4.
4. Frigjør musikken—igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4.
4. Frigjør musikken—igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
most pressing—music. There is no other policy issue that better
</p><p>
File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
-all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title='Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'>5</a>, they enable four
+all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”">5</a>, they enable four
different kinds of sharing:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
weakened.
</p><p>
-As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title='Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'>5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For
+As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="5. Kapittel fem: “Piratvirksomhet”">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial. For
the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though "free"
-content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.<sup>[<a name="id2844654" href="#ftn.id2844654" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
+content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.<sup>[<a name="id2661089" href="#ftn.id2661089" 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="id2926050" href="#ftn.id2926050" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
+Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2661245" href="#ftn.id2661245" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
(1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
-old system of controlling access. <a class="indexterm" name="id2926216"></a>
+old system of controlling access. <a class="indexterm" name="id2661423"></a>
</p><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
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
926228"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
661434"></a><p>
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of "harm" to
an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation would be
outweighed by the benefit of facilitating innovation. This background system
ødelegge internettet. Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
som internettet er.
-</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.5.
5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.5.
5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
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="id2926458" href="#ftn.id2926458" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
+åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2661665" href="#ftn.id2661665" 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="id2926491" href="#ftn.id2926491" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
+lav.<sup>[<a name="id2661698" href="#ftn.id2661698" 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>
Vi burde spørre: "Hvorfor?". 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.id2924109" href="#id2924109" 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.id2659578" href="#id2659578" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
examples in 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.id2924603" href="#id2924603" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
+between technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2660087" href="#id2660087" 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.id2924793" href="#id2924793" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2660285" href="#id2660285" 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.id2924917" href="#id2924917" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
+by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2660408" href="#id2660408" 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.id2925042" href="#id2925042" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2660533" href="#id2660533" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
"A Radical Rethink," <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.id2925129" href="#id2925129" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2660627" href="#id2660627" 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.id2925244" href="#id2925244" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2660741" href="#id2660741" 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.id2925274" href="#id2925274" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2660772" href="#id2660772" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2925347" href="#id2925347" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2660845" href="#id2660845" 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="id2924120"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2844654" href="#id2844654" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
+187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="id2659590"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2661089" href="#id2661089" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
For eksempel, se, "Music Media Watch," 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.id2926050" href="#id2926050" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2661245" href="#id2661245" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober 2000), tilgjengelig
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="id2926164"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2926173"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2926179"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2926458" href="#id2926458" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2661360"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2661368"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id2661374"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2661665" href="#id2661665" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
Lawrence Lessig, "Copyright's First Amendment" (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.id2926491" href="#id2926491" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2661698" href="#id2661698" 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="id2926469"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
+<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76. <a class="indexterm" name="id2661675"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="
17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven. Og som alle
som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
ustabile. Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
lenken. Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
til en passende referanse til materialet.
-</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
Kapittel 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Kapittel 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="chapter" title="
18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
926712"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id2
661918"></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="Inde
ks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2926833"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symboler</h3><dl><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></dl></div><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>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2902651">"Piratvirksomhet"</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">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>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">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2902651">"Piratvirksomhet"</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2902651">"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">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2902651">"Piratvirksomhet"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2902651">"Piratvirksomhet"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">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">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id2902651">"Piratvirksomhet"</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2902651">"Piratvirksomhet"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>
+</p></div><div class="index" title="Inde
x"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2662039"></a>Index</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><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></dl></div><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>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2637767">“Piratvirksomhet”</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">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>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">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2637767">“Piratvirksomhet”</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2637767">“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">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2637767">“Piratvirksomhet”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2637767">“Piratvirksomhet”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">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">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id2637767">“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 (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: “Eiendom”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: “Kun etter-apere”</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2637767">“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
