-<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 V1.75.2"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's "e.biz 25," og omtalt som en av Scientific American's "50 visjonærer". Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store mediaaktører 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="id
2523137"></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 V1.75.2"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's "e.biz 25," og omtalt som en av Scientific American's "50 visjonærer". Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
+og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id
3063381"></a><p>
Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensert med en
Creative Commons-lisens. Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt. For mer
informasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
</p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
-Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org/" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor i
-juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law
-School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og
-styreleder i Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
+Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor i juss
+og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School,
+er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i
+Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code:
And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i
Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public
utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law
School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.
- </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication" title="Dedikasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id
2500964"></a>Dedikasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
+ </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication" title="Dedikasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id
3071367"></a>Dedikasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
Til Eric Eldred — hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
hvem saken fortsetter.
</p><p>
</p><div class="figure"><a name="CreativeCommons"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 1. Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/cc.png" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></div></div></div><p><br class="figure-break">
-</p></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">1. Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-piracy">I. "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#creators">2. Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#mere-copyists">3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#catalogs">4. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#pirates">5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#piracy">6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-property">II. "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#founders">7. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#recorders">8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#transformers">9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#collectors">10. Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#property-i">11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-puzzles">III. Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#chimera">12. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#harms">13. Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-balances">IV. Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#eldred">14. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#eldred-ii">15. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="
part"><a href="#c-conclusion">V. Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#id2574840">16. </a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-afterword">VI. Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#id2577197">17. </a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">18. Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">19. Takk til</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-figures"><p><b>Figuroversikt</b></p><dl><dt>1. <a href="#CreativeCommons">Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert</a></dt><dt>11.1. <a href="#fig-1331">How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
+</p></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">1. Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-piracy">I. "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#creators">2. Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#mere-copyists">3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#catalogs">4. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#pirates">5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#piracy">6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-property">II. "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#founders">7. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#recorders">8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#transformers">9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#collectors">10. Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#property-i">11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-puzzles">III. Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#chimera">12. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#harms">13. Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-balances">IV. Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#eldred">14. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#eldred-ii">15. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="
chapter"><a href="#c-conclusion">16. Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-afterword">17. Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">18. Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">19. Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id3109133">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-figures"><p><b>Figuroversikt</b></p><dl><dt>1. <a href="#CreativeCommons">Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert</a></dt><dt>11.1. <a href="#fig-1331">How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
the right or regulation.</a></dt><dt>11.2. <a href="#fig-1361">Law has a special role in affecting the three.</a></dt><dt>11.3. <a href="#fig-1371">Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</a></dt><dt>11.4. <a href="#fig-1381">effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</a></dt><dt>11.5. <a href="#fig-1441">Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</a></dt><dt>11.6. <a href="#fig-1442">"Opphavsrett" i dag.</a></dt><dt>11.7. <a href="#fig-1521">Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</a></dt><dt>11.8. <a href="#fig-1531">Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</a></dt><dt>11.9. <a href="#fig-1541">Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
copyrighted work.</a></dt><dt>11.10. <a href="#fig-1542">Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".</a></dt><dt>11.11. <a href="#fig-1551">Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
-regulated.</a></dt><dt>11.12. <a href="#fig-1611">Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</a></dt><dt>11.13. <a href="#fig-1612">List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</a></dt><dt>11.14. <a href="#fig-1621">E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"</a></dt><dt>11.15. <a href="#fig-1622">Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</a></dt><dt>11.16. <a href="#fig-1631">List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</a></dt><dt>11.17. <a href="#fig-1641">List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</a></dt><dt>11.18. <a href="#fig-1711">VCR/handgun cartoon.</a></dt><dt>11.19. <a href="#fig-1761">Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</a></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-tables"><p><b>tabelloversikt</b></p><dl><dt>6.1. <a href="#t1">Tabell</a></dt><dt>11.1. <a href="#t2"></a></dt><dt>11.2. <a href="#t3"></a></dt><dt>11.3. <a href="#t4"></a></dt><dt>11.4. <a href="#t5"></a></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id
2547096"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
+regulated.</a></dt><dt>11.12. <a href="#fig-1611">Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</a></dt><dt>11.13. <a href="#fig-1612">List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</a></dt><dt>11.14. <a href="#fig-1621">E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"</a></dt><dt>11.15. <a href="#fig-1622">Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</a></dt><dt>11.16. <a href="#fig-1631">List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</a></dt><dt>11.17. <a href="#fig-1641">List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</a></dt><dt>11.18. <a href="#fig-1711">VCR/handgun cartoon.</a></dt><dt>11.19. <a href="#fig-1761">Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</a></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-tables"><p><b>tabelloversikt</b></p><dl><dt>6.1. <a href="#t1">Tabell</a></dt><dt>11.1. <a href="#t2"></a></dt><dt>11.2. <a href="#t3"></a></dt><dt>11.3. <a href="#t4"></a></dt><dt>11.4. <a href="#t5"></a></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id
3066318"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
Du kan kjøpe en kopi av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene nedenfor:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div><p>
Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
</p><p>
Fri Kultur
</p><p>
-Hvordan store mediaaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
+Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
og kontrollere kreativiteten
</p><p>
Lawrence Lessig
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="id
2500030"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3068148"></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="id2500011" href="#ftn.id2500011" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men "fri" som i
+programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id3078523" href="#ftn.id3078523" 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="id
2500112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3062050"></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 mediakonsentrasjon, 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="id2500131"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3082198"></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="id2500154" href="#ftn.id2500154" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id3076719" href="#ftn.id3076719" 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 name="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 name="ftn.id2500011" href="#id2500011" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3078523" href="#id3078523" 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 name="ftn.id2500154" href="#id2500154" 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="id2500161"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3076719" href="#id3076719" 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="id3066952"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 1. 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
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="id2500317" href="#ftn.id2500317" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I
+bakken, "i ubestemt grad, oppover".<sup>[<a name="id3074398" href="#ftn.id3074398" 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="id
2500337"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2500363"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3083639"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3068496"></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="id
2500383"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2500390"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3076706"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3082715"></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="id2500428" href="#ftn.id2500428" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id3066659" href="#ftn.id3066659" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
"Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft."
</p><p>
lovpraksis-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="id
2553795"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2553802"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3066584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3070694"></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="id2553865"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2553874"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2553881"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3069538"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058251"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3069544"></a>
</p><p>
Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse—FM-radio. Inntil da hadde
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="id2553945" href="#ftn.id2553945" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
+noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en radio-"musikk-boks".<sup>[<a name="id3068201" href="#ftn.id3068201" 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="id2499495"></a>
+Sarnoff fornøyd. <a class="indexterm" name="id3079323"></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="id2553893" href="#ftn.id2553893" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id3055370" href="#ftn.id3055370" 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="id2499537"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3065681"></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="id2499561" href="#ftn.id2499561" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
+makt.<sup>[<a name="id3068150" href="#ftn.id3068150" 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="id2499589" href="#ftn.id2499589" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2554246"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id3079318" href="#ftn.id3079318" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3065065"></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="id2554327" href="#ftn.id2554327" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
+tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id3071390" href="#ftn.id3071390" 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
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="id2554420" href="#ftn.id2554420" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id3071786" href="#ftn.id3071786" 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="id2554457" href="#ftn.id2554457" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
+fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id3069889" href="#ftn.id3069889" 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="id2554585" href="#ftn.id2554585" 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="id3063877" href="#ftn.id3063877" 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="id2553948" href="#ftn.id2553948" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id3080366" href="#ftn.id3080366" 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="id
2554031"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2554037"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3069173"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3032622"></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="id
2554080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2554087"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3032365"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3032372"></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="id
2554178"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2554185"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3032463"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3032469"></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 name="ftn.id2500317" href="#id2500317" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3074398" href="#id3074398" 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 name="ftn.id2500428" href="#id2500428" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3066659" href="#id3066659" 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="id2553767"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2500458"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2553945" href="#id2553945" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
+(1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="id3081924"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3059232"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3068201" href="#id3068201" 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 name="ftn.id2553893" href="#id2553893" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," første
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3055370" href="#id3055370" 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 name="ftn.id2499561" href="#id2499561" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2499589" href="#id2499589" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3068150" href="#id3068150" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3079318" href="#id3079318" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2554327" href="#id2554327" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3071390" href="#id3071390" 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 name="ftn.id2554420" href="#id2554420" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3071786" href="#id3071786" 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
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="id2553947"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2554457" href="#id2554457" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
+Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200. <a class="indexterm" name="id3079723"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3069889" href="#id3069889" 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="id2554465"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2554585" href="#id2554585" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="id3071815"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3063877" href="#id3063877" 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 name="ftn.id2553948" href="#id2553948" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3080366" href="#id3080366" 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="id2553957"></a>
+Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="id3059865"></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>
Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
en krig mot "piratvirksomhet". De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
</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="id2555299" href="#ftn.id2555299" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2555313"></a></blockquote></div><p>
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id3086832" href="#ftn.id3086832" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3086846"></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="id
2555412"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3086945"></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="id2555427" href="#ftn.id2555427" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha rettigheten til denne
+for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id3086959" href="#ftn.id3086959" 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="id2555447" href="#ftn.id2555447" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
+jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id3086979" href="#ftn.id3086979" 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="id
2555476"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3087008"></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="id
2555529"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3087062"></a><p>
Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begresningen 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="id2555538" href="#ftn.id2555538" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Desverre ser vi også en
+klasse"<sup>[<a name="id3087071" href="#ftn.id3087071" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Desverre 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="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#creators">2. Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#mere-copyists">3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#catalogs">4. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#pirates">5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#piracy">6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2555299" href="#id2555299" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#creators">2. Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#mere-copyists">3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#catalogs">4. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#pirates">5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#piracy">6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3086832" href="#id3086832" 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 name="ftn.id2555427" href="#id2555427" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3086959" href="#id3086959" 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 name="ftn.id2555447" href="#id2555447" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3086979" href="#id3086979" 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="id2555465"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2555538" href="#id2555538" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
+2002. <a class="indexterm" name="id3086997"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3087071" href="#id3087071" 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="id2555602"></a>
+vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id3087134"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 2. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel 2. 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>.
Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
nesten instiktivt 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
-grufult, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2555717" href="#ftn.id2555717" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
+grufult, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id3087249" href="#ftn.id3087249" 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="id2555739"></a>
+i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like bra." <a class="indexterm" name="id3087273"></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="id2555810" href="#ftn.id2555810" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
+Bill,<sup>[<a name="id3087344" href="#ftn.id3087344" 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="id2555863" href="#ftn.id2555863" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
+ham.<sup>[<a name="id3087396" href="#ftn.id3087396" 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
misvisende. Det er mer presist "Walt Disney-kreativitet"—en
uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på kulturen rundt oss og omformer den
til noe annet.
-</p><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was relatively
-fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was therefore quite
-vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around thirty
-years—for that minority of creative work that was in fact
-copyrighted.<sup>[<a name="id2556005" href="#ftn.id2556005" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
-years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had
-an "exclusive right" to control certain uses of the work. To use this
-copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the copyright
-owner.
+</p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
+fersk. Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
+levende. Gjennomsnittelig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
+år—for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id3087538" href="#ftn.id3087538" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
+tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verkers
+opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en "eksklusiv rett" til a kontrollere bestemte
+typer bruk av verket. For å bruke disse opphavsvernsbeskyttede verkene på
+de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
</p><p>
Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
allemannseie. Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
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="id2556168" href="#ftn.id2556168" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
+og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id3087709" href="#ftn.id3087709" 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="id
2556293"></a><p>
-The norm in Japan mitigates this legal difficulty. Some say it is precisely
-the benefit accruing to the Japanese manga market that explains the
-mitigation. Temple University law professor Salil Mehra, for example,
-hypothesizes that the manga market accepts these technical violations
-because they spur the manga market to be more wealthy and
-productive. Everyone would be worse off if doujinshi were banned, so the law
-does not ban doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2556318" href="#ftn.id2556318" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3087834"></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 hypotiserer 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 værre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
+bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id3087855" href="#ftn.id3087855" 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
begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
</p><p>
-We live in a world that celebrates "property." I am one of those
-celebrants. I believe in the value of property in general, and I also
-believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call
-"intellectual property."<sup>[<a name="id2556408" href="#ftn.id2556408" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> A large,
-diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, and
-modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.
+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 "immaterielle
+eierrettigheter".<sup>[<a name="id3087949" href="#ftn.id3087949" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et stort og variert
+samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderte samfunn kan ikke
+blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
</p><p>
But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of
value out there that "property" doesn't capture. I don't mean "money can't
Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
bra.
</p><p>
-The same with the doujinshi culture. If a doujinshi artist broke into a
-publisher's office and ran off with a thousand copies of his latest
-work—or even one copy—without paying, we'd have no hesitation in
-saying the artist was wrong. In addition to having trespassed, he would have
-stolen something of value. The law bans that stealing in whatever form,
-whether large or small.
+Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen. Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
+seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
+siste verk—elller bare en kopi—uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
+nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt. I tillegg til å å trengt seg inn
+på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
+i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
</p><p>
Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere "stjeler". Denne formen for Walt
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 name="ftn.id2555717" href="#id2555717" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3087249" href="#id3087249" 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 name="ftn.id2555810" href="#id2555810" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3087344" href="#id3087344" 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 name="ftn.id2555863" href="#id2555863" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3087396" href="#id3087396" 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 name="ftn.id2556005" href="#id2556005" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3087538" href="#id3087538" 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 name="ftn.id2556168" href="#id2556168" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3087709" href="#id3087709" 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 name="ftn.id2556318" href="#id2556318" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3087855" href="#id3087855" 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 name="ftn.id2556408" href="#id2556408" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3087949" href="#id3087949" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
The term <em class="citetitle">intellectual property</em> is of relatively
recent origin. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of
"property" rights—copyright, patents, trademark, and
trade-secret—but the nature of those rights is very different.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2556425"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel 3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2556569"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3087966"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel 3. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3088119"></a><p>
In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for
producing what we would call "photographs." Appropriately enough, they were
called "daguerreotypes." The process was complicated and expensive, and the
</p><p>
Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of
it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis
-of its simplicity. "You press the button and we do the rest."<sup>[<a name="id2556632" href="#ftn.id2556632" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in <em class="citetitle">The Kodak
+of its simplicity. "You press the button and we do the rest."<sup>[<a name="id3088182" href="#ftn.id3088182" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in <em class="citetitle">The Kodak
Primer</em>:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
The principle of the Kodak system is the separation of the work that any
instrument which altogether removes from the practice of photography the
necessity for exceptional facilities or, in fact, any special knowledge of
the art. It can be employed without preliminary study, without a darkroom
-and without chemicals.<sup>[<a name="id2556661" href="#ftn.id2556661" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
+and without chemicals.<sup>[<a name="id3088211" href="#ftn.id3088211" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
For $25, anyone could make pictures. The camera came preloaded with film,
and when it had been used, the camera was returned to an Eastman factory,
camera first went on sale in 1888; one year later, Kodak was printing more
than six thousand negatives a day. From 1888 through 1909, while industrial
production was rising by 4.7 percent, photographic equipment and material
-sales increased by percent.<sup>[<a name="id2556694" href="#ftn.id2556694" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Eastman
+sales increased by percent.<sup>[<a name="id3088243" href="#ftn.id3088243" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Eastman
Kodak's sales during the same period experienced an average annual increase
-of over 17 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2556702" href="#ftn.id2556702" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2556711"></a><p>
+of over 17 percent.<sup>[<a name="id3088252" href="#ftn.id3088252" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3088261"></a><p>
The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It
man on the street with a permanent record of his family and its
activities. . . . For the first time in history there exists an authentic
visual record of the appearance and activities of the common man made
-without [literary] interpretation or bias."<sup>[<a name="id2556730" href="#ftn.id2556730" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
+without [literary] interpretation or bias."<sup>[<a name="id3088280" href="#ftn.id3088280" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of expression. The
pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of expression, of course. But it
changed the course of photography substantially. Courts were asked whether
the photographer, amateur or professional, required permission before he
could capture and print whatever image he wanted. Their answer was
-no.<sup>[<a name="id2556765" href="#ftn.id2556765" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
+no.<sup>[<a name="id3088315" href="#ftn.id3088315" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as Disney was not free to
take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so, too, should
these photographers not be free to take images that they thought valuable.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2556796"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3088348"></a><p>
On the other side was an argument that should be familiar, as well. Sure,
there may be something of value being used. But citizens should have the
right to capture at least those images that stand in public view. (Louis
Brandeis, who would become a Supreme Court Justice, thought the rule should
-be different for images from private spaces.<sup>[<a name="id2556819" href="#ftn.id2556819" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) It may be that this means that the photographer gets something for
+be different for images from private spaces.<sup>[<a name="id3088371" href="#ftn.id3088371" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) It may be that this means that the photographer gets something for
nothing. Just as Disney could take inspiration from <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
Bill, Jr</em>. or the Brothers Grimm, the photographer should be free
to capture an image without compensating the source.
craft an exception for famous people: commercial photographers who snap
pictures of famous people for commercial purposes have more restrictions
than the rest of us. But in the ordinary case, the image can be captured
-without clearing the rights to do the capturing.<sup>[<a name="id2556873" href="#ftn.id2556873" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
+without clearing the rights to do the capturing.<sup>[<a name="id3088425" href="#ftn.id3088425" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
</p><p>
We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had the law
gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the photographer,
travel to more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred
children to learn something about media by doing something with media. By
doing, they think. By tinkering, they learn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2556918"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3088471"></a><p>
These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly
so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen
dramatically. As one analyst puts it, "Five years ago, a good real-time
digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get professional
-quality for $595."<sup>[<a name="id2556962" href="#ftn.id2556962" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> These buses are
+quality for $595."<sup>[<a name="id3088515" href="#ftn.id3088515" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> These buses are
filled with technology that would have cost hundreds of thousands just ten
years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not just buses like this, but
classrooms across the country where kids are learning more and more of
puts it, "is the ability . . . to understand, analyze, and deconstruct media
images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the way media works, the
way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and the way people access it."
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2556989"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3088544"></a>
</p><p>
This may seem like an odd way to think about "literacy." For most people,
literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway and noticing
</p><p>
Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of television
commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000 commercials
-generally,<sup>[<a name="id2557011" href="#ftn.id2557011" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
+generally,<sup>[<a name="id3088565" href="#ftn.id3088565" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
to understand the "grammar" of media. For just as there is a grammar for the
written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as kids learn how to
write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to write media by
reading a book about it. One learns to write by writing and then reflecting
upon what one has written. One learns to write with images by making them
and then reflecting upon what one has created.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2557054"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3088609"></a><p>
This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as
Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School
of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about "the placement
-of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and texture."<sup>[<a name="id2557068" href="#ftn.id2557068" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open up an interactive space where
+of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, and texture."<sup>[<a name="id3088623" href="#ftn.id3088623" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open up an interactive space where
a story is "played" as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple
control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author
Michael Crichton had mastered the narrative of science fiction. But when he
tried to design a computer game based on one of his works, it was a new
craft he had to learn. How to lead people through a game without their
feeling they have been led was not obvious, even to a wildly successful
-author.<sup>[<a name="id2557100" href="#ftn.id2557100" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2557121"></a><p>
+author.<sup>[<a name="id3088655" href="#ftn.id3088655" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3088677"></a><p>
This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes,
"people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t is
perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If a
the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that
enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this
literacy in particular, is to "empower people to choose the appropriate
-language for what they need to create or express."<sup>[<a name="id2557172" href="#ftn.id2557172" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable students "to communicate in the
-language of the twenty-first century."<sup>[<a name="id2557189" href="#ftn.id2557189" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2557197"></a><p>
+language for what they need to create or express."<sup>[<a name="id3088729" href="#ftn.id3088729" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable students "to communicate in the
+language of the twenty-first century."<sup>[<a name="id3088747" href="#ftn.id3088747" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3088754"></a><p>
As with any language, this language comes more easily to some than to
others. It doesn't necessarily come more easily to those who excel in
written language. Daley and Stephanie Barish, director of the Institute for
seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly
come to expect it, "news as entertainment," even if the entertainment is
tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2557332"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2557337"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3088889"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3088895"></a><p>
But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of September 11,"
those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different production as
well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same events. Yet these
impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the "right" result; they
tried to persuade each other of the "right" result, and in criminal cases at
least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to
-an end.<sup>[<a name="id2557379" href="#ftn.id2557379" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
+an end.<sup>[<a name="id3088947" href="#ftn.id3088947" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place,
there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are
-pushing to create just such an institution.<sup>[<a name="id2557465" href="#ftn.id2557465" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
+pushing to create just such an institution.<sup>[<a name="id3089034" href="#ftn.id3089034" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place
for "democratic deliberation" to occur.
</p><p>
against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about politics with people
you agree with. But it is rude to argue about politics with people you
disagree with. Political discourse becomes isolated, and isolated discourse
-becomes more extreme.<sup>[<a name="id2557489" href="#ftn.id2557489" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> We say what our
+becomes more extreme.<sup>[<a name="id3089057" href="#ftn.id3089057" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> We say what our
friends want to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say.
</p><p>
The significance of these blogs is tiny now, though not so tiny. The name
Howard Dean may well have faded from the 2004 presidential race but for
blogs. Yet even if the number of readers is small, the reading is having an
-effect. <a class="indexterm" name="id2557533"></a>
+effect. <a class="indexterm" name="id3089101"></a>
</p><p>
One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott "misspoke"
didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The bloggers kept researching
the story. Over time, more and more instances of the same "misspeaking"
emerged. Finally, the story broke back into the mainstream press. In the
-end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2557552" href="#ftn.id2557552" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2557560"></a>
+end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id3089120" href="#ftn.id3089120" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3089129"></a>
</p><p>
This different cycle is possible because the same commercial pressures don't
exist with blogs as with other ventures. Television and newspapers are
journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the conflict of
interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of get it out of
the way."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2557613"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3089188"></a><p>
These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated
(more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public
than an unconcentrated media can—as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq
war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own
-employees.<sup>[<a name="id2557440" href="#ftn.id2557440" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
+employees.<sup>[<a name="id3089008" href="#ftn.id3089008" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the
Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink
with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter
not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range
of input into a story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when
hundreds from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to
-retell what they had seen.<sup>[<a name="id2557648" href="#ftn.id2557648" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it
+retell what they had seen.<sup>[<a name="id3089223" href="#ftn.id3089223" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it
drives readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as
Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly
with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it"—with all the
blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for public
figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's not clear that
"journalism" is happy about this—some journalists have been told to
-curtail their blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2557678" href="#ftn.id2557678" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear
+curtail their blogging.<sup>[<a name="id3089253" href="#ftn.id3089253" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear
that we are still in transition. "A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
exercises," Winer told me. There is a lot that must mature before this
space has its mature effect. And as the inclusion of content in this space
criticism improves democracy. Today there are probably a couple of million
blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be
something extraordinary to report.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2557744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3089326"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work,
as his Web site describes it, is "human learning and . . . the creation of
knowledge ecologies for creating . . . innovation."
are visual, if you are interested in film . . . [then] there is a lot you
can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor these
multiple forms of intelligence."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2557838"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3089430"></a><p>
Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and Just
Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well as
curiosity, would otherwise ensure.
</p><p>
These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars.
-Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter 10) has
-developed a powerful argument in favor of the "right to tinker" as it
-applies to computer science and to knowledge in general.<sup>[<a name="id2557872" href="#ftn.id2557872" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more
-fundamental. It is about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because
-of the law.
+Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>11</a>) has developed a
+powerful argument in favor of the "right to tinker" as it applies to
+computer science and to knowledge in general.<sup>[<a name="id3089470" href="#ftn.id3089470" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more fundamental. It
+is about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because of the law.
</p><p>
"This is where education in the twenty-first century is going," Brown
explains. We need to "understand how kids who grow up digital think and want
tendencies of today's digital kids. . . . We're building an architecture
that unleashes 60 percent of the brain [and] a legal system that closes down
that part of the brain."
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2557903"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3089501"></a><p>
We're building a technology that takes the magic of Kodak, mixes moving
images and sound, and adds a space for commentary and an opportunity to
spread that creativity everywhere. But we're building the law to close down
that technology.
</p><p>
-"No way to run a culture," as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in chapter 9,
-quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2556632" href="#id2556632" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
+"No way to run a culture," as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in chapter
+<a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ni: Samlere">10</a>, quipped to me
+in a rare moment of despondence.
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088182" href="#id3088182" 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 name="ftn.id2556661" href="#id2556661" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088211" href="#id3088211" 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="id2556669"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2556694" href="#id2556694" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
+Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53. <a class="indexterm" name="id3088219"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088243" href="#id3088243" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2556702" href="#id2556702" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088252" href="#id3088252" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2556730" href="#id2556730" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088280" href="#id3088280" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2556765" href="#id2556765" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088315" href="#id3088315" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
For illustrative cases, see, for example, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
<em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2556819" href="#id2556819" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088371" href="#id3088371" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy,"
-<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id2556827"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2556836"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2556873" href="#id2556873" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
+<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="id3088380"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3088388"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088425" href="#id3088425" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
See Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," <em class="citetitle">Law and
398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Samsung
Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2556962" href="#id2556962" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088515" href="#id3088515" 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 name="ftn.id2557011" href="#id2557011" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088565" href="#id3088565" 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 May 1997, B6.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557068" href="#id2557068" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088623" href="#id3088623" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2557076"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2557084"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557100" href="#id2557100" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3088631"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3088639"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088655" href="#id3088655" 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 name="ftn.id2557172" href="#id2557172" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088729" href="#id3088729" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id2557178"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557189" href="#id2557189" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="id3088736"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088747" href="#id3088747" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557379" href="#id2557379" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3088947" href="#id3088947" 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 name="ftn.id2557465" href="#id2557465" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089034" href="#id3089034" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day," <em class="citetitle">Journal of
Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557489" href="#id2557489" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089057" href="#id3089057" 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 name="ftn.id2557552" href="#id2557552" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089120" href="#id3089120" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
Noah Shachtman, "With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot," New York
Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557440" href="#id2557440" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089008" href="#id3089008" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557648" href="#id2557648" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089223" href="#id3089223" 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 February 2003, A28; Staci
D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," Online
Journalism Review, 2 February 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557678" href="#id2557678" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089253" href="#id3089253" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
See Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?"
<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. ("Not all news
on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses' request. Last year
Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em> reporter, was
fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a pseudonym, that
-dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.") <a class="indexterm" name="id2557709"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2557872" href="#id2557872" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
+dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.") <a class="indexterm" name="id3089285"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089470" href="#id3089470" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, "Technological Access
added up the claims, these four lawsuits were asking courts in the United
States to award the plaintiffs close to $100
<span class="emphasis"><em>billion</em></span>—six times the <span class="emphasis"><em>total</em></span>
-profit of the film industry in 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2558113" href="#ftn.id2558113" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
+profit of the film industry in 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3089707" href="#ftn.id3089707" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Jesse called his parents. They were supportive but a bit frightened. An
uncle was a lawyer. He began negotiations with the RIAA. They demanded to
morality in a lawsuit like this? What is the virtue in scapegoatism? The
RIAA is an extraordinarily powerful lobby. The president of the RIAA is
reported to make more than $1 million a year. Artists, on the other hand,
-are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $45,900.<sup>[<a name="id2558178" href="#ftn.id2558178" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and
+are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $45,900.<sup>[<a name="id3089772" href="#ftn.id3089772" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and
direct policy. So where is the morality in taking money from a student for
-running a search engine?<sup>[<a name="id2558193" href="#ftn.id2558193" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
+running a search engine?<sup>[<a name="id3089787" href="#ftn.id3089787" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
for RIA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
I. . . . He's not a tree hugger. . . . I think it's bizarre that they would
pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the wrong
message. And he wants to correct the record."
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2558113" href="#id2558113" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089707" href="#id3089707" 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 name="ftn.id2558178" href="#id2558178" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089772" href="#id3089772" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
(27–2042—Musicians and Singers). See also 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 name="ftn.id2558193" href="#id2558193" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089787" href="#id3089787" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i "KaZaA and Punishment,"
pirates join this generation's country club—until now.
</p><div class="section" title="Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id2558270" href="#ftn.id2558270" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast
+The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id3089864" href="#ftn.id3089864" 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
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="id2558328" href="#ftn.id2558328" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2558354"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2558361"></a>
+defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id3089923" href="#ftn.id3089923" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3089949"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3089955"></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="id2558376" href="#ftn.id2558376" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to
+occurred."<sup>[<a name="id3089971" href="#ftn.id3089971" 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.
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="id
2558440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3090034"></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
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="id2558486" href="#ftn.id2558486" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
+without any regard for [their] rights.<sup>[<a name="id3090080" href="#ftn.id3090080" 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="id2558509" href="#ftn.id2558509" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the "music publishing
+composers,"<sup>[<a name="id3090103" href="#ftn.id3090103" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the "music publishing
industry" was thereby "at the complete mercy of this one
-pirate."<sup>[<a name="id2558519" href="#ftn.id2558519" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As John Philip Sousa put it,
+pirate."<sup>[<a name="id3090113" href="#ftn.id3090113" 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="id2558530" href="#ftn.id2558530" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
+want a share of it."<sup>[<a name="id3090124" href="#ftn.id3090124" 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="id2558548" href="#ftn.id2558548" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the innovators
+music.<sup>[<a name="id3090142" href="#ftn.id3090142" 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="id2558554" href="#ftn.id2558554" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
+or artistic, except as defined by statute."<sup>[<a name="id3090148" href="#ftn.id3090148" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
</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="id2558613"></a>
+work except with permission of Grisham. <a class="indexterm" name="id3090214"></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="id2558294" href="#ftn.id2558294" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2558654"></a>
+follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id3089888" href="#ftn.id3089888" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3090255"></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="id2558686" href="#ftn.id2558686" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
+choice.<sup>[<a name="id3090287" href="#ftn.id3090287" 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.
Radio was also born of piracy.
</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="id2558723" href="#ftn.id2558723" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As
+performance" of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id3090323" href="#ftn.id3090323" 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="id2558789"></a>
+as it pays the composer of the music for his work. <a class="indexterm" name="id3090389"></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="id
2558840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3090440"></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
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="id
2558874"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2558890"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3090475"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3090491"></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="id2558902" href="#ftn.id2558902" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup>
+potentially destructive competition."<sup>[<a name="id3090502" href="#ftn.id3090502" 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="id2558918" href="#ftn.id2558918" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another broadcaster put it,
+interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?"<sup>[<a name="id3090518" href="#ftn.id3090518" 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="id2558935" href="#ftn.id2558935" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
+for.<sup>[<a name="id3090536" href="#ftn.id3090536" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable enough:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
All we are asking for is a very simple thing, that people who now take our
property for nothing pay for it. We are trying to stop piracy and I don't
think there is any lesser word to describe it. I think there are harsher
-words which would fit it.<sup>[<a name="id2558959" href="#ftn.id2558959" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
+words which would fit it.<sup>[<a name="id3090560" href="#ftn.id3090560" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Disse var "gratispassasjerer", sa presidenten Charlton Heston i Screen
-Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"<sup>[<a name="id2558977" href="#ftn.id2558977" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
+Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"<sup>[<a name="id3090577" href="#ftn.id3090577" 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="id2559004" href="#ftn.id2559004" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2559022"></a>
+compensation.<sup>[<a name="id3090604" href="#ftn.id3090604" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3090622"></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="id2559009" href="#ftn.id2559009" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> — then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
+creator—as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id3090610" href="#ftn.id3090610" 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 name="ftn.id2558270" href="#id2558270" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089864" href="#id3089864" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary
history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
Copywrongs</em>, 87–93, which details Edison's "adventures"
-with copyright and patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2558184"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2558328" href="#id2558328" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
+with copyright and patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id3089778"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089923" href="#id3089923" 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 name="ftn.id2558376" href="#id2558376" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
+Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 159. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089971" href="#id3089971" 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 name="ftn.id2558486" href="#id2558486" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090080" href="#id3090080" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
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).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2558509" href="#id2558509" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090103" href="#id3090103" 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 name="ftn.id2558519" href="#id2558519" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090113" href="#id3090113" 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 name="ftn.id2558530" href="#id2558530" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090124" href="#id3090124" 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 name="ftn.id2558548" href="#id2558548" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090142" href="#id3090142" 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
Company of New York).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2558554" href="#id2558554" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090148" href="#id3090148" 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 name="ftn.id2558294" href="#id2558294" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3089888" href="#id3089888" 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 name="ftn.id2558686" href="#id2558686" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090287" href="#id3090287" 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 name="ftn.id2558723" href="#id2558723" 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 name="ftn.id3090323" href="#id3090323" 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="id2558748"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2558756"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2558902" href="#id2558902" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3090348"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3090357"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090502" href="#id3090502" 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).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2558918" href="#id2558918" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090518" href="#id3090518" 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 name="ftn.id2558935" href="#id2558935" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090536" href="#id3090536" 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 name="ftn.id2558959" href="#id2558959" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090560" href="#id3090560" 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 name="ftn.id2558977" href="#id2558977" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090577" href="#id3090577" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
president i Screen Actors Guild).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559004" href="#id2559004" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090604" href="#id3090604" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-acting assistant attorney general). <a class="indexterm" name="id2558982"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559009" href="#id2559009" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
+acting assistant attorney general). <a class="indexterm" name="id3090583"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090610" href="#id3090610" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
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="id2559086" href="#ftn.id2559086" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
+every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id3090686" href="#ftn.id3090686" 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="id2559211" href="#ftn.id2559211" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
+intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id3090812" href="#ftn.id3090812" 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="id2559256" href="#ftn.id2559256" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
+otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id3090856" href="#ftn.id3090856" 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="id2559365"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2559371"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2559383"></a>
+Microsoft. Without piracy, then, Microsoft would lose. <a class="indexterm" name="id3090965"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3090972"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3090983"></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="id2559134"></a>
+access, then violating the law is still wrong. <a class="indexterm" name="id3090734"></a>
</p><p>
</p></div><div class="section" title="Piracy II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>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="id2559483" href="#ftn.id2559483" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we
+author of [his] profit."<sup>[<a name="id3091083" href="#ftn.id3091083" 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="id2559506" href="#ftn.id2559506" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
+Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id3091107" href="#ftn.id3091107" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
crew had simply put together components that had been developed
-independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id2559536"></a>
+independently. <a class="indexterm" name="id3091136"></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="id2559549" href="#ftn.id2559549" 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="id3091149" href="#ftn.id3091149" 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="id2559584" href="#ftn.id2559584" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
+Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id3091185" href="#ftn.id3091185" 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="id2559612" href="#ftn.id2559612" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
+May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id3091213" href="#ftn.id3091213" 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="id2559666"></a>
+of purchasing. <a class="indexterm" name="id3091267"></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="id2559734" href="#ftn.id2559734" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
+economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id3091335" href="#ftn.id3091335" 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="id2559778" href="#ftn.id2559778" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed that every
+it."<sup>[<a name="id3091379" href="#ftn.id3091379" 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="id2559816" href="#ftn.id2559816" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
+labels."<sup>[<a name="id3091417" href="#ftn.id3091417" 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="id2559872" href="#ftn.id2559872" 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="id3091473" href="#ftn.id3091473" 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="id2559917" href="#ftn.id2559917" 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="id3091518" href="#ftn.id3091518" 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="id2559950" href="#ftn.id2559950" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
+get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99."<sup>[<a name="id3091551" href="#ftn.id3091551" 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="id2559974" href="#ftn.id2559974" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
+are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id3091574" href="#ftn.id3091574" 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="id2560030" href="#ftn.id2560030" 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="id3091631" href="#ftn.id3091631" 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="id
2560077"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3091678"></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 4, 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 is how best to preserve its benefits while
-minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
-question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
-balance will be found only with time.
+like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title='Kapittel 5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'>5</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
+is how best to preserve its benefits while minimizing (to the extent
+possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The question is one of
+balance. The law should seek that balance, and that balance will be found
+only with time.
</p><p>
Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling? Er ikke angrepsmålet
bare det du kaller type A-deling?
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="id2560180" href="#ftn.id2560180" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
+zero."<sup>[<a name="id3091787" href="#ftn.id3091787" 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="id
2560277"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3091895"></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="id2560326" href="#ftn.id2560326" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup>
+copyright owner has, his copyright."<sup>[<a name="id3091943" href="#ftn.id3091943" 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="id2560343" href="#ftn.id2560343" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later
+sense."<sup>[<a name="id3091966" href="#ftn.id3091966" 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="id2560352" href="#ftn.id2560352" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup> — a use the Court would
+more<sup>[<a name="id3091975" href="#ftn.id3091975" 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="id2560260" href="#ftn.id2560260" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
+thereby profit from its reproduction."<sup>[<a name="id3091877" href="#ftn.id3091877" 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="id2560386" href="#ftn.id2560386" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup>
+American film industry)—was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id3092009" href="#ftn.id3092009" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup>
</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="id2560432" href="#ftn.id2560432" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
+technology.<sup>[<a name="id3092055" href="#ftn.id3092055" 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="table"><a name="t1"></a><p class="title"><b>Tabell 6.1. Tabell</b></p><div class="table-contents"><table summary="Tabell" border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char">CASE</th><th align="char">WHOSE VALUE WAS "PIRATED"</th><th align="char">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="char">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</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></div><br class="table-break"><p>
In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
-content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2560561" href="#ftn.id2560561" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
+content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id3092184" href="#ftn.id3092184" 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="id2560641" href="#ftn.id2560641" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup> Instead, the
+uses of his work."<sup>[<a name="id3092264" href="#ftn.id3092264" 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="id2560693" href="#ftn.id2560693" 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="id3092322" href="#ftn.id3092322" 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>
"It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>," the warriors insist. "And it
should be protected just as any other property is protected."
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559086" href="#id2559086" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090686" href="#id3090686" 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 name="ftn.id2559211" href="#id2559211" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090812" href="#id3090812" 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="id2558555"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559256" href="#id2559256" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
+framework. <a class="indexterm" name="id3090149"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3090856" href="#id3090856" 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:
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="id2559220"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559483" href="#id2559483" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
+were not an option." Ibid., 149. <a class="indexterm" name="id3090821"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091083" href="#id3091083" 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 name="ftn.id2559506" href="#id2559506" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091107" href="#id3091107" 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="id2559265"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559549" href="#id2559549" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
+89–92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id3090866"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091149" href="#id3091149" 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 name="ftn.id2559584" href="#id2559584" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091185" href="#id3091185" 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 name="ftn.id2559612" href="#id2559612" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091213" href="#id3091213" 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 name="ftn.id2559734" href="#id2559734" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091335" href="#id3091335" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
-See Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
-148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id2559524"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559778" href="#id2559778" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
+Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="id3091125"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091379" href="#id3091379" 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 name="ftn.id2559816" href="#id2559816" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
+Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091417" href="#id3091417" 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 name="ftn.id2559872" href="#id2559872" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091473" href="#id3091473" 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 name="ftn.id2559917" href="#id2559917" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091518" href="#id3091518" 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="id2559931"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559950" href="#id2559950" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
+#17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3091532"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091551" href="#id3091551" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2559974" href="#id2559974" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091574" href="#id3091574" 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 name="ftn.id2560030" href="#id2560030" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091631" href="#id3091631" 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 name="ftn.id2560180" href="#id2560180" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091787" href="#id3091787" 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 name="ftn.id2560326" href="#id2560326" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091943" href="#id3091943" 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 name="ftn.id2560343" href="#id2560343" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091966" href="#id3091966" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2560352" href="#id2560352" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091975" href="#id3091975" 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 name="ftn.id2560260" href="#id2560260" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3091877" href="#id3091877" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
Valenti).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2560386" href="#id2560386" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092009" href="#id3092009" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2560432" href="#id2560432" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092055" href="#id3092055" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2560561" href="#id2560561" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092184" href="#id3092184" 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="id2560203"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2560641" href="#id2560641" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
+70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="id3091810"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092264" href="#id3092264" 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 name="ftn.id2560693" href="#id2560693" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092322" href="#id3092322" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
John Schwartz, "New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software Echoes Past
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="id2560766" href="#ftn.id2560766" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
+taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."<sup>[<a name="id3092395" href="#ftn.id3092395" 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="id2560812" href="#ftn.id2560812" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
+proper context.<sup>[<a name="id3092440" href="#ftn.id3092440" 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="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#founders">7. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#recorders">8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#transformers">9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#collectors">10. Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#property-i">11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2560766" href="#id2560766" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#founders">7. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#recorders">8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#transformers">9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#collectors">10. Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#property-i">11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092395" href="#id3092395" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (13 August 1813) in
<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 name="ftn.id2560812" href="#id2560812" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092440" href="#id3092440" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
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="id2560887" href="#ftn.id2560887" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson var den
-mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"<sup>[<a name="id2560917" href="#ftn.id2560917" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele
+London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id3092523" href="#ftn.id3092523" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson var den
+mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"<sup>[<a name="id3092553" href="#ftn.id3092553" 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="id2560955" href="#ftn.id2560955" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På grunn av denne
+på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id3092590" href="#ftn.id3092590" 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>
-The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a "copyright"
-was—indeed, no one had. At the time the English passed the Statute of
-Anne, there was no other legislation governing copyrights. The last law
-regulating publishers, the Licensing Act of 1662, had expired in 1695. That
-law gave publishers a monopoly over publishing, as a way to make it easier
-for the Crown to control what was published. But after it expired, there
-was no positive law that said that the publishers, or "Stationers," had an
-exclusive right to print books. <a class="indexterm" name="id2560775"></a>
+Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
+opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
+engelskmennene vedtok "Statute of Anne", var det ingen annen lovgivning om
+opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var lisensieringsloven
+av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol over publiseringen,
+noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva ble publisert. Men
+etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa at utgiverne hadde
+en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker. <a class="indexterm" name="id3092630"></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
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="id2561206" href="#ftn.id2561206" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
+ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."<sup>[<a name="id3092832" href="#ftn.id3092832" 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="id2561283" href="#ftn.id2561283" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id3092910" href="#ftn.id3092910" 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="id2561350" href="#ftn.id2561350" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om forfatternes
+for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."<sup>[<a name="id3092977" href="#ftn.id3092977" 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="id2561377" href="#ftn.id2561377" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id3093004" href="#ftn.id3093004" 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="id2561399" href="#ftn.id2561399" 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="id3093026" href="#ftn.id3093026" 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="id2561418" href="#ftn.id2561418" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2561427"></a>
+antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."<sup>[<a name="id3093045" href="#ftn.id3093045" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3093054"></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="id2561444" href="#ftn.id2561444" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var mellom 30%
+eiendom." <sup>[<a name="id3093071" href="#ftn.id3093071" 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="id2561490" href="#ftn.id2561490" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
+sa.<sup>[<a name="id3093117" href="#ftn.id3093117" 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="id
2561557"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093184"></a><p>
Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2561572"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093199"></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="id2561585" href="#ftn.id2561585" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id3093212" href="#ftn.id3093212" 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="id2561682"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2561688"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2561695"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2561701"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2561707"></a>
+Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var frie. <a class="indexterm" name="id3093309"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3093315"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3093322"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3093328"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3093334"></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="id2561736" href="#ftn.id2561736" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
+etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.<sup>[<a name="id3093363" href="#ftn.id3093363" 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="id2561766" href="#ftn.id2561766" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id3093393" href="#ftn.id3093393" 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 name="ftn.id2560887" href="#id2560887" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092523" href="#id3092523" 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 name="ftn.id2560917" href="#id2560917" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092553" href="#id3092553" 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 name="ftn.id2560955" href="#id2560955" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092590" href="#id3092590" 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="id2560965"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2561206" href="#id2561206" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
+Copywrongs</em>, 40. <a class="indexterm" name="id3092601"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092832" href="#id3092832" 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 name="ftn.id2561283" href="#id2561283" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092910" href="#id3092910" 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 name="ftn.id2561350" href="#id2561350" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3092977" href="#id3092977" 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="id2560927"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2561377" href="#id2561377" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3092563"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093004" href="#id3093004" 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 name="ftn.id2561399" href="#id2561399" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093026" href="#id3093026" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1993), 92.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2561418" href="#id2561418" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093045" href="#id3093045" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2561444" href="#id2561444" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093071" href="#id3093071" 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 name="ftn.id2561490" href="#id2561490" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093117" href="#id3093117" 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 name="ftn.id2561585" href="#id2561585" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093212" href="#id3093212" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2561736" href="#id2561736" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093363" href="#id3093363" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2561766" href="#id2561766" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093393" href="#id3093393" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
Ibid.
focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera. Stagehands are a
particularly funny and colorful element of an opera. During a show, they
hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and in the lighting loft. They
-make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage. <a class="indexterm" name="id2561869"></a>
+make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage. <a class="indexterm" name="id3093496"></a>
</p><p>
During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands playing
four-and-a-halfsecond image on a tiny television set in the corner of the
room. How could it hurt? Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he
told Else to contact Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2561914"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3093541"></a>
</p><p>
Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted to be
careful. So they told Else to contact Fox, Gracie's parent company. Else
called Fox and told them about the clip in the corner of the one room shot
of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission, Else said. He was
-just confirming the permission with Fox. <a class="indexterm" name="id2561929"></a>
+just confirming the permission with Fox. <a class="indexterm" name="id3093556"></a>
</p><p>
Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we discovered . . . that
Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at least that someone
reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the very last
minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally replaced the shot
with a clip from another film that he had worked on, <em class="citetitle">The Day
-After Trinity</em>, from ten years before. <a class="indexterm" name="id2561986"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2561992"></a>
+After Trinity</em>, from ten years before. <a class="indexterm" name="id3093613"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3093619"></a>
</p><p>
There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the
copyright to <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. That copyright is their
her right, as set by the law.
</p><p>
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought
-is "fair use."<sup>[<a name="id2562040" href="#ftn.id2562040" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Else's use of just 4.5
+is "fair use."<sup>[<a name="id3093667" href="#ftn.id3093667" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Else's use of just 4.5
seconds of an indirect shot of a <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> episode is
clearly a fair use of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>—and fair use
does not require the permission of anyone.
free or cheap license to four seconds of <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>. As
a documentary producer working to exhaustion on a shoestring, the last thing
I wanted was to risk legal trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to
-defend a principle. <a class="indexterm" name="id2562129"></a>
+defend a principle. <a class="indexterm" name="id3093756"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect
publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has
matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or not.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2562040" href="#id2562040" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093667" href="#id3093667" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
For an excellent argument that such use is "fair use," but that lawyers
William F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>" (draft on file with author), University of
Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel 9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
2562199"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2562205"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel 9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093820"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3093826"></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="id
2562220"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093841"></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="id
2562229"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093850"></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="id
2562263"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093884"></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="id
2562278"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093899"></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="id
2562290"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093911"></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="id2562302" href="#ftn.id2562302" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
+use in these film clips." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."<sup>[<a name="id3093923" href="#ftn.id3093923" 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="id
2562363"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3093984"></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="id
2562400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3094021"></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="id
2562434"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2562440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3094055"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3094061"></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="id2562454" href="#ftn.id2562454" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked Alben,
+all."<sup>[<a name="id3094075" href="#ftn.id3094075" 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="id
2562534"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3094155"></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="id
2562588"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3094208"></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="id
2562608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3094229"></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="id2562636"></a>
+and music. <a class="indexterm" name="id3094256"></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 name="ftn.id2562302" href="#id2562302" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3093923" href="#id3093923" 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="id2562231"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2562454" href="#id2562454" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
+this chapter evinces. <a class="indexterm" name="id3093852"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3094075" href="#id3094075" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
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="id2562807" href="#ftn.id2562807" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
+forget.<sup>[<a name="id3094428" href="#ftn.id3094428" 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
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="id2562872" href="#ftn.id2562872" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
+company.<sup>[<a name="id3094492" href="#ftn.id3094492" 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="id2562996"></a>
+in a few minutes—for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id3094600"></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="id2563095" href="#ftn.id2563095" 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="id3094699" href="#ftn.id3094699" 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 name="ftn.id2562807" href="#id2562807" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3094428" href="#id3094428" 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 name="ftn.id2562872" href="#id2562872" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3094492" href="#id3094492" 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 name="ftn.id2563095" href="#id2563095" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3094699" href="#id3094699" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
Dave Barns, "Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar
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="id2563212"></a>
+Washington. <a class="indexterm" name="id3094808"></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="id2563282"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2563287"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2563294"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2563300"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2563306"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2563312"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2563319"></a>
+Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers. <a class="indexterm" name="id3094866"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3094871"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3094878"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3094884"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3094890"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3094896"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3094903"></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="id2563374" href="#ftn.id2563374" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
+debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id3094959" href="#ftn.id3094959" 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="id2563426" href="#ftn.id2563426" 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="id3095011" href="#ftn.id3095011" 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
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="id2563333"></a>
+by the state. <a class="indexterm" name="id3094918"></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="id2563744" href="#ftn.id2563744" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
+in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id3095342" href="#ftn.id3095342" 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="id
2563770"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 11.2. 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="id
3095362"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 11.2. 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="id2563814" href="#ftn.id2563814" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
+modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id3095407" href="#ftn.id3095407" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
</p><div class="section" title="Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>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
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="id2564011" href="#ftn.id2564011" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
+cameras.<sup>[<a name="id3095603" href="#ftn.id3095603" 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="id2564060" href="#ftn.id2564060" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
+competitors."<sup>[<a name="id3095653" href="#ftn.id3095653" 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="id2564079"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3095672"></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="id2564163"></a>
+increase farm production. <a class="indexterm" name="id3095749"></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="id
2564180"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3095767"></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="id2564196"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2564203"></a>
+reproduce. Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed. <a class="indexterm" name="id3095783"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3095789"></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="id2564232" href="#ftn.id2564232" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
+culture.<sup>[<a name="id3095819" href="#ftn.id3095819" 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="id
2564276"></a></div><div class="section" title="Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>Opphav</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3095863"></a></div><div class="section" title="Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>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 6, the English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a
-few would not exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
+chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">7</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
the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend "to Authors"
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="id2564428" href="#ftn.id2564428" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
+rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id3096021" href="#ftn.id3096021" 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="id2564494" href="#ftn.id2564494" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
+14 år.<sup>[<a name="id3096087" href="#ftn.id3096087" 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="id2564561" href="#ftn.id2564561" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
+work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id3096153" href="#ftn.id3096153" 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="id2564589" href="#ftn.id2564589" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
+print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id3096182" href="#ftn.id3096182" 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="id2564692" href="#ftn.id2564692" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
+the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id3096277" href="#ftn.id3096277" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
</p></div><div class="section" title="Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>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
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="id2564816" href="#ftn.id2564816" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
+United States.<sup>[<a name="id3096401" href="#ftn.id3096401" 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="id2564897" href="#ftn.id2564897" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
+protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id3096482" href="#ftn.id3096482" 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="id2564943" href="#ftn.id2564943" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
+book.<sup>[<a name="id3096529" href="#ftn.id3096529" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
creative work are treated the same.
</p><p>
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
-and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2564994" href="#ftn.id2564994" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
+and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id3096579" href="#ftn.id3096579" 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="id2565055" href="#ftn.id2565055" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
+copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id3096640" href="#ftn.id3096640" 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.
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="id2565001" href="#ftn.id2565001" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
+copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id3096586" href="#ftn.id3096586" 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
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="id
2565503"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3097089"></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="id2565550" href="#ftn.id2565550" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
+juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id3097136" href="#ftn.id3097136" 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="id2565571" href="#ftn.id2565571" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor ordet
+det".<sup>[<a name="id3097157" href="#ftn.id3097157" 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="id
2565629"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2565638"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3097224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3097232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form. En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
computer.
</p><p>
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
-Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id2565750"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2565756"></a>
+Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em> <a class="indexterm" name="id3097356"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3097362"></a>
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 11.14. 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>
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.
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="id2565835" href="#ftn.id2565835" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my
+is no such copyright power.<sup>[<a name="id3097442" href="#ftn.id3097442" 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="id2565890"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3097497"></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
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><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3097608"></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="idxaibo"></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="id
2566102"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3097703"></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="id2566147" href="#ftn.id2566147" 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="id3097749" href="#ftn.id3097749" 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.
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="id2566395" href="#ftn.id2566395" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
+way, is important.<sup>[<a name="id3098004" href="#ftn.id3098004" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
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="id2566534" href="#ftn.id2566534" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
+continue it.<sup>[<a name="id3098144" href="#ftn.id3098144" 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
three companies control more than percent of the media.
</p><p>
Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2566638"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3098262"></a><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="id2566649" href="#ftn.id2566649" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording labels of Universal Music Group,
+companies control 85 percent of our media sources."<sup>[<a name="id3098273" href="#ftn.id3098273" 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="id2566661" href="#ftn.id2566661" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The
+percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id3098285" href="#ftn.id3098285" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The
"five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable
-subscribers nationwide."<sup>[<a name="id2566674" href="#ftn.id2566674" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2566685"></a>
+subscribers nationwide."<sup>[<a name="id3098298" href="#ftn.id3098298" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3098309"></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="id2566716"></a>
+article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id3098341"></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="id2566741" href="#ftn.id2566741" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
+system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3098365" href="#ftn.id3098365" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
</p><p>
Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
er viktig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2566820"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2566826"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2566833"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3098444"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3098451"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3098457"></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="id2566866" href="#ftn.id2566866" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
+nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id3098490" href="#ftn.id3098490" 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="id2566896" href="#ftn.id2566896" 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="id3098521" href="#ftn.id3098521" 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="id2566940" href="#ftn.id2566940" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2566947"></a><p>
+hours per week produced by independent studios decreased 63%."<sup>[<a name="id3098564" href="#ftn.id3098564" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3098571"></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>
While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the ownership of
those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller few. As Barry
-Diller said to Bill Moyers, <a class="indexterm" name="id2566969"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2566975"></a>
+Diller said to Bill Moyers, <a class="indexterm" name="id3098593"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3098599"></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="id2566994" href="#ftn.id2566994" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
+you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id3098618" href="#ftn.id3098618" 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="id
2567018"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3098642"></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="id2567046" href="#ftn.id2567046" 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="id3098670" href="#ftn.id3098670" 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="id2567074"></a>
+little sprinting. <a class="indexterm" name="id3098698"></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="id2567176" href="#ftn.id2567176" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
+defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id3098801" href="#ftn.id3098801" 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
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="id2567362" href="#ftn.id2567362" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
+known.<sup>[<a name="id3099005" href="#ftn.id3099005" 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 7 and 8, 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.
+chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">8</a> and
+<a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">9</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.
</p><p>
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="id2567706" href="#ftn.id2567706" 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="id3099362" href="#ftn.id3099362" 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 name="ftn.id2563374" href="#id2563374" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3094959" href="#id3094959" 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 name="ftn.id2563426" href="#id2563426" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3095011" href="#id3095011" 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 name="ftn.id2563744" href="#id2563744" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3095342" href="#id3095342" 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 name="ftn.id2563814" href="#id2563814" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3095407" href="#id3095407" 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="id2563862"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2564011" href="#id2564011" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
+liberty that each of these groups might face. <a class="indexterm" name="id3095454"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3095603" href="#id3095603" 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 name="ftn.id2564060" href="#id2564060" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3095653" href="#id3095653" 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 name="ftn.id2564232" href="#id2564232" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3095819" href="#id3095819" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
-See, for example, James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
+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 name="ftn.id2564428" href="#id2564428" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096021" href="#id3096021" 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="id2564444"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2564494" href="#id2564494" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
+added). <a class="indexterm" name="id3096037"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096087" href="#id3096087" 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 name="ftn.id2564561" href="#id2564561" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
+years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096153" href="#id3096153" 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 name="ftn.id2564589" href="#id2564589" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
+498–501, and accompanying figures. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096182" href="#id3096182" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2564692" href="#id2564692" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096277" href="#id3096277" 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 name="ftn.id2564816" href="#id2564816" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096401" href="#id3096401" 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 name="ftn.id2564897" href="#id2564897" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096482" href="#id3096482" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage," <em class="citetitle">Legal
-Affairs</em>, July/August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2564924"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2564943" href="#id2564943" 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="id3096510"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096529" href="#id3096529" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality,"
<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112 (2002): 1–60 (see
especially pp. 53–59).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2564994" href="#id2564994" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096579" href="#id3096579" 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 name="ftn.id2565055" href="#id2565055" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096640" href="#id3096640" 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 name="ftn.id2565001" href="#id2565001" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3096586" href="#id3096586" 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 name="ftn.id2565550" href="#id2565550" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3097136" href="#id3097136" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
-See David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," <em class="citetitle">Law and
+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 name="ftn.id2565571" href="#id2565571" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3097157" href="#id3097157" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
-Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id2565562"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2565835" href="#id2565835" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
+Copywrongs</em>, 1–3. <a class="indexterm" name="id3097148"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3097442" href="#id3097442" 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 name="ftn.id2566147" href="#id2566147" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3097749" href="#id3097749" 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="id2566184"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2566395" href="#id2566395" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
+#27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3097786"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098004" href="#id3098004" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
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.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2566534" href="#id2566534" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098144" href="#id3098144" 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 name="ftn.id2566649" href="#id2566649" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098273" href="#id3098273" 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 name="ftn.id2566661" href="#id2566661" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
+of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098285" href="#id3098285" 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 name="ftn.id2566674" href="#id2566674" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098298" href="#id3098298" 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 name="ftn.id2566741" href="#id2566741" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098365" href="#id3098365" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em>
-(September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id2566757"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2566866" href="#id2566866" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
+(September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="id3098381"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098490" href="#id3098490" 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 name="ftn.id2566896" href="#id2566896" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098521" href="#id3098521" 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 name="ftn.id2566940" href="#id2566940" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098564" href="#id3098564" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2566994" href="#id2566994" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098618" href="#id3098618" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
"Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," <em class="citetitle">Now with Bill
-Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available
-at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2567046" href="#id2567046" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
+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 name="ftn.id3098670" href="#id3098670" 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 name="ftn.id2567176" href="#id2567176" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
+2001). </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3098801" href="#id3098801" 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="id2567224"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2567233"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2567239"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2567362" href="#id2567362" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
+the criticism was "too controversial." <a class="indexterm" name="id3098849"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3098857"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3098863"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3098870"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3098876"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3098882"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3099005" href="#id3099005" 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="id2567202"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2567706" href="#id2567706" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3098827"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3099362" href="#id3099362" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
</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="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#chimera">12. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#harms">13. Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 12. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel 12. 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="id2567853" href="#ftn.id2567853" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
+the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id3099492" href="#ftn.id3099492" 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="id
2567948"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2567957"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3099594"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3099602"></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="id2567982"></a>
+take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower. <a class="indexterm" name="id3099627"></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="id2568060" href="#ftn.id2568060" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
+been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id3099705" href="#ftn.id3099705" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2568139"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3099783"></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="id2568224" href="#ftn.id2568224" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
+everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id3099868" href="#ftn.id3099868" 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="id2568246"></a>
+major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed. <a class="indexterm" name="id3099891"></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 name="ftn.id2567853" href="#id2567853" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3099492" href="#id3099492" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells,
<em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other Stories</em>, Michael
Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2568060" href="#id2568060" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3099705" href="#id3099705" 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="id2568128"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2568224" href="#id2568224" 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="id3099772"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3099868" href="#id3099868" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
the property called "intellectual property" is at its greatest in our
history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2568294"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2568300"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3099938"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3099945"></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"
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="id2568405" href="#ftn.id2568405" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
+$750 million.<sup>[<a name="id3100060" href="#ftn.id3100060" 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="id2568441" href="#ftn.id2568441" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
+damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id3100096" href="#ftn.id3100096" 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="id2568478"></a>
+negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id3100132"></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="id2568044" href="#ftn.id2568044" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In what does their "illegality"
+States.<sup>[<a name="id3099688" href="#ftn.id3099688" 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 10. 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 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape
-player transmitted a list of the songs that you played in the privacy of
-your own home that anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
+law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>11</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
+who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
+list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
+anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
</p><p>
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
them is not similarly free.
</p><p>
Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
-in chapter 7, 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.
+in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">8</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.
</p><p>
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="id
2568670"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100327"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
-that I described in chapter 10. 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 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach
-venture capitalists a lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank
-Barry calls a "nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley—has been
+that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>11</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
+through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
+capitalists a lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
+calls a "nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley—has been
learned.
</p><p>
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
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="id2568732"></a>
+so on. <a class="indexterm" name="id3100396"></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="id
2568836"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2568844"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2568851"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100500"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3100508"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3100515"></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="id2568864" href="#ftn.id2568864" 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="id3100528" href="#ftn.id3100528" 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
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:
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
2568907"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id
3100582"></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="id2568923" href="#ftn.id2568923" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
+sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. . . . <sup>[<a name="id3100598" href="#ftn.id3100598" 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="id2569055" href="#ftn.id2569055" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
+or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id3100742" href="#ftn.id3100742" 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="id2569077" href="#ftn.id2569077" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
+copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id3100764" href="#ftn.id3100764" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
</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="id2569101" href="#ftn.id2569101" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
+impose.<sup>[<a name="id3100788" href="#ftn.id3100788" 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.
</p><p>
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 10, 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="id2569135" href="#ftn.id2569135" 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 case of the VCR) has been another.
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>11</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="id3100827" href="#ftn.id3100827" 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
+case of the VCR) has been another.
</p><p>
But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
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="id2569170" href="#ftn.id2569170" 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="id3100863" href="#ftn.id3100863" 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="id2569206" href="#ftn.id2569206" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
+here.<sup>[<a name="id3100898" href="#ftn.id3100898" 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 4, 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.
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title='Kapittel 5. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'>5</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.
</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="id2569338" href="#ftn.id2569338" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
+shackles.<sup>[<a name="id3101033" href="#ftn.id3101033" 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="id2569116" href="#ftn.id2569116" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
+"vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"<sup>[<a name="id3100803" href="#ftn.id3100803" 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="id2569397" href="#ftn.id2569397" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
+year.<sup>[<a name="id3101093" href="#ftn.id3101093" 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="id
2569609"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3101304"></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 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="id2569696" href="#ftn.id2569696" 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="id3101391" href="#ftn.id3101391" 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="id2569388" href="#ftn.id2569388" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
+file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id3101083" href="#ftn.id3101083" 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="id2569771" href="#ftn.id2569771" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
+were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id3101475" href="#ftn.id3101475" 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="id2569784" href="#ftn.id2569784" 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="id3101488" href="#ftn.id3101488" 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="id2569801" href="#ftn.id2569801" 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="id3101505" href="#ftn.id3101505" 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.
</p><p>
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="id
2569920"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3101625"></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="id2570025"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3101741"></a>
</p><p>
"Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter," forklarer von Lohmann,
-<a class="indexterm" name="id2570038"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3101754"></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="id2570089" href="#ftn.id2570089" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
+these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id3101804" href="#ftn.id3101804" 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="id2570130" href="#ftn.id2570130" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
+to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id3101845" href="#ftn.id3101845" 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="id2569988" href="#ftn.id2569988" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the
+deploy,<sup>[<a name="id3101693" href="#ftn.id3101693" 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="id2570225"></a>
+prohibition. This war is no different. Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id3101951"></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 name="ftn.id2568405" href="#id2568405" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100060" href="#id3100060" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
for details of the settlement, see MCI press release, "MCI Wins
U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement" (7 July 2003), available at
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2568428"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2568441" href="#id2568441" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3100083"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100096" href="#id3100096" 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="id2568465"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2568044" href="#id2568044" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
+continued to urge tort reform in recent months. <a class="indexterm" name="id3100119"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3099688" href="#id3099688" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
-See Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free," <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>,
-7 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#40</a>. For an overview of the exhibition, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2568864" href="#id2568864" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
+Se Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free," <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>,
+7. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For en oversikt over
+utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#41</a>.
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100528" href="#id3100528" 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 name="ftn.id2568923" href="#id2568923" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100598" href="#id3100598" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
Rafe Needleman, "Driving in Cars with MP3s," <em class="citetitle">Business
-2.0</em>, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. I am grateful to
-Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example. <a class="indexterm" name="id2568939"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2569055" href="#id2569055" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
+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="id3100614"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100742" href="#id3100742" 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 name="ftn.id2569077" href="#id2569077" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100764" href="#id3100764" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2569101" href="#id2569101" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100788" href="#id3100788" 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 name="ftn.id2569135" href="#id2569135" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
- Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
-Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id2569142"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2569170" href="#id2569170" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100827" href="#id3100827" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
+
+Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
+Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="id3100835"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100863" href="#id3100863" 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 name="ftn.id2569206" href="#id2569206" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100898" href="#id3100898" 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="id2569214"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2569338" href="#id2569338" 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="id3100906"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101033" href="#id3101033" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2569116" href="#id2569116" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3100803" href="#id3100803" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2569397" href="#id2569397" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101093" href="#id3101093" 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="id2569427"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569436"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2569696" href="#id2569696" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
+way." <a class="indexterm" name="id3101122"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3101131"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101391" href="#id3101391" 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 name="ftn.id2569388" href="#id2569388" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101083" href="#id3101083" 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 name="ftn.id2569771" href="#id2569771" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101475" href="#id3101475" 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 name="ftn.id2569784" href="#id2569784" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101488" href="#id3101488" 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 name="ftn.id2569801" href="#id2569801" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101505" href="#id3101505" 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 name="ftn.id2570089" href="#id2570089" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101804" href="#id3101804" 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 name="ftn.id2570130" href="#id2570130" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101845" href="#id3101845" 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 name="ftn.id2569988" href="#id2569988" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3101693" href="#id3101693" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
See Jeff Adler, "Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,"
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="id2570468" href="#ftn.id2570468" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
+culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id3102194" href="#ftn.id3102194" 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 10, 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 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that
-year (and not even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast,
-in the same period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public
-domain.
+library. But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>11</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
+copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
+even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
+period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
</p><p>
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
-Mary Bono, says, believed that "copyrights should be forever."<sup>[<a name="id2570500" href="#ftn.id2570500" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
+Mary Bono, says, believed that "copyrights should be forever."<sup>[<a name="id3102248" href="#ftn.id3102248" 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="id2570542"></a>
+Jaszi so nicely put it. <a class="indexterm" name="id3102273"></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="id2570727" href="#ftn.id2570727" 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="id3102459" href="#ftn.id3102459" 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="id2570742" href="#ftn.id2570742" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is
+campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3102474" href="#ftn.id3102474" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is
estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in
-the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2570757" href="#ftn.id2570757" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
+the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id3102489" href="#ftn.id3102489" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
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="id2570847" href="#ftn.id2570847" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything
+Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id3102589" href="#ftn.id3102589" 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="id2570874" href="#ftn.id2570874" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
+v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id3102616" href="#ftn.id3102616" 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="id2570894" href="#ftn.id2570894" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id3102636" href="#ftn.id3102636" 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="id2570973" href="#ftn.id2570973" 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="id3102723" href="#ftn.id3102723" 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.
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="id2571033" href="#ftn.id2571033" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
+generally.<sup>[<a name="id3102789" href="#ftn.id3102789" 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="id
2571161"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3102911"></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="id2571183" href="#ftn.id2571183" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571200"></a>
+videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent films."<sup>[<a name="id3102932" href="#ftn.id3102932" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3102949"></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="id2571237" href="#ftn.id2571237" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
+cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id3102986" href="#ftn.id3102986" 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="id2571472" href="#ftn.id2571472" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
+value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id3103227" href="#ftn.id3103227" 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="id
2571592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103352"></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="id
2571615"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2571621"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2571627"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103374"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103381"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103387"></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="id2571720"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571727"></a>
+Schlafly argued. <a class="indexterm" name="id3103480"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103486"></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="id2571756"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571764"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3103516"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3103524"></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
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="id
2571787"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2571793"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2571799"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2571806"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2571812"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103547"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103553"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103559"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103565"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3103572"></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="id2571822"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3103582"></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="id2571868"></a>
+the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument. <a class="indexterm" name="id3103628"></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="id2571898" href="#ftn.id2571898" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That
+drugs or to create pornography."<sup>[<a name="id3103658" href="#ftn.id3103658" 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="id2571923" href="#ftn.id2571923" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their
+Americans in the cast.<sup>[<a name="id3103683" href="#ftn.id3103683" 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="id2571937"></a>
+wanted this law to help them effect that control. <a class="indexterm" name="id3103697"></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
<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="id
2571987"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103747"></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="id
2572021"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103781"></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="id
2572140"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103893"></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="id2572153"></a>
+of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id3103906"></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="id
2572163"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3103916"></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="id
2572290"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104042"></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="id
2572480"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104233"></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="id
2572499"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104252"></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="id
2572598"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104351"></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="id
2572640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104393"></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="id2572652"></a>
+Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id3104404"></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="id2572683"></a>
+not be raised until it is. <a class="indexterm" name="id3104436"></a>
</p><p>
After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
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. The "powerful and
wealthy" line is a bit unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like
-that. <a class="indexterm" name="id2572567"></a>
+that. <a class="indexterm" name="id3104320"></a>
</p><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
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 name="ftn.id2570468" href="#id2570468" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102194" href="#id3102194" 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 name="ftn.id2570500" href="#id2570500" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
+protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102248" href="#id3102248" 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 name="ftn.id2570727" href="#id2570727" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102459" href="#id3102459" 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 name="ftn.id2570742" href="#id2570742" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102474" href="#id3102474" 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 name="ftn.id2570757" href="#id2570757" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102489" href="#id3102489" 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 name="ftn.id2570847" href="#id2570847" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102589" href="#id3102589" 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 name="ftn.id2570874" href="#id2570874" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102616" href="#id3102616" 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 name="ftn.id2570894" href="#id2570894" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102636" href="#id3102636" 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 name="ftn.id2570973" href="#id2570973" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102723" href="#id3102723" 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 name="ftn.id2571033" href="#id2571033" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102789" href="#id3102789" 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 name="ftn.id2571183" href="#id2571183" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102932" href="#id3102932" 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 name="ftn.id2571237" href="#id2571237" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3102986" href="#id3102986" 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 name="ftn.id2571472" href="#id2571472" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3103227" href="#id3103227" 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 name="ftn.id2571898" href="#id2571898" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3103658" href="#id3103658" 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 name="ftn.id2571923" href="#id2571923" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3103683" href="#id3103683" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
Dinitia Smith, "Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse Joins
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="id
2572780"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104533"></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="id
2572836"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104589"></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="id2572870"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2572876"></a><p>
-
-As I described in chapter 10, 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="id2572888" href="#ftn.id2572888" 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 protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
-respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
-creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id3104632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3104639"></a><p>
+
+As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>11</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="id3104656" href="#ftn.id3104656" 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
+protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly respect the dignity of
+the author. My right as a creator turns on my creativity, not upon the
+special favor of the government.
</p><p>
That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
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="id
2572954"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104704"></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="id2573027"></a>
+take their place. <a class="indexterm" name="id3104806"></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="id
2573151"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3104893"></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="id2573184"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3104926"></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
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="id
2573337"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2573343"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3105080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3105086"></a><p>
What is hard to understand is why the public takes this view. It is as if
the law made airplanes trespassers. The MPAA stands with the Causbys and
demands that their remote and useless property rights be respected, so that
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 name="ftn.id2572888" href="#id2572888" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3104656" href="#id3104656" 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="
part" title="Del V. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Del V. Konklusjon</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Konklusjon"><div></div><p>
+153–54. </p></div></div></div></div><div class="
chapter" title="Kapittel 16. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 16. 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
000 pr. år. Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen 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="id2573426" href="#ftn.id2573426" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
+disse medisinene fullstendig utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id3105166" href="#ftn.id3105166" 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="id2573503" href="#ftn.id2573503" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
+union.<sup>[<a name="id3105244" href="#ftn.id3105244" 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="id2573540" href="#ftn.id2573540" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup>
+lisensiering eller parallellimport"<sup>[<a name="id3105280" href="#ftn.id3105280" 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="id2573569" href="#ftn.id2573569" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
+Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id3105309" href="#ftn.id3105309" 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="id2573663" href="#ftn.id2573663" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> Det var på
+eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id3105403" href="#ftn.id3105403" 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
fri kultur.
</p><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="id2573788" href="#ftn.id2573788" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interresenter hadde WIPO
+Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id3105528" href="#ftn.id3105528" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interresenter hadde WIPO
bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere "åpne og sammarbeidende 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="id2573964"></a>
+programvare". <a class="indexterm" name="id3105705"></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="id2573991" href="#ftn.id2573991" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<sup>[<a name="id3105732" href="#ftn.id3105732" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker. De involverte i hovedsak
vitenskapet, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i stedet for
"proprietær programvare," til sine egne interne behov.
</p><p>
-I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make clear
-that the distinction is not between commercial and noncommercial
-software. There are many important companies that depend fundamentally upon
-open source and free software, IBM being the most prominent. IBM is
-increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux operating system, the most
-famous bit of "free software"—and IBM is emphatically a commercial
-entity. Thus, to support "open source and free software" is not to oppose
-commercial entities. It is, instead, to support a mode of software
-development that is different from Microsoft's.<sup>[<a name="id2573846" href="#ftn.id2573846" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574130"></a>
+Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her. Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
+det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
+programvare. Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
+fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende. IBM har i stadig større
+grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
+biten av "fri programvare"—og IBM er helt klart en kommernsiell
+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="id3105587" href="#ftn.id3105587" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3105886"></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="id2574193" href="#ftn.id2574193" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
+slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id3105949" href="#ftn.id3105949" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
møtet avlyst.
</p><p>
Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
$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="id2574331"></a>
+<span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span> eiendom. <a class="indexterm" name="id3106087"></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="id
2574372"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2574378"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3106128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3106134"></a><p>
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
-vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2574390" href="#ftn.id2574390" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
+vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3106146" href="#ftn.id3106146" 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="id
2574516"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3106272"></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 eierskapregler, 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="id2574537"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574543"></a>
+krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat. <a class="indexterm" name="id3106293"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3106299"></a>
</p><p>
Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fientlige 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="id
2574635"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3106392"></a><p>
Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
-at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2574648" href="#ftn.id2574648" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
-musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2574694" href="#ftn.id2574694" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
+at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id3106404" href="#ftn.id3106404" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
+musikk.<sup>[<a name="id3106450" href="#ftn.id3106450" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
har "stjålet" fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
-over.<sup>[<a name="id2574712" href="#ftn.id2574712" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> En på innsiden i
+over.<sup>[<a name="id3106468" href="#ftn.id3106468" 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="id
2574728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2574752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2574758"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2574765"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3106503"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3106510"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3106516"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3106522"></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="id2574782" href="#ftn.id2574782" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup>
+fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id3106539" href="#ftn.id3106539" 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="id2574803" href="#ftn.id2574803" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten mer
+innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske landet.<sup>[<a name="id3106560" href="#ftn.id3106560" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie. Sannheten mer
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="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#id2574840">16. </a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2573426" href="#id2573426" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3105166" href="#id3105166" 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 name="ftn.id2573503" href="#id2573503" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3105244" href="#id3105244" 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="id2573512"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2573520"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2573540" href="#id2573540" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
+37. <a class="indexterm" name="id3105252"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3105261"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3105280" href="#id3105280" 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 name="ftn.id2573569" href="#id2573569" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3105309" href="#id3105309" 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 name="ftn.id2573663" href="#id2573663" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3105403" href="#id3105403" 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 name="ftn.id2573788" href="#id2573788" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3105528" href="#id3105528" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
Jonathan Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," <em class="citetitle">Washington
-Post</em>,
August 2003, E1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New, "Global
+Post</em>,
august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New, "Global
Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir," <em class="citetitle">National
-Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>; William New,
+Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>; William New,
"U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO," <em class="citetitle">National
-Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2573991" href="#id2573991" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
+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 name="ftn.id3105732" href="#id3105732" 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 name="ftn.id2573846" href="#id2573846" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
-
-
-Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
-sophisticated. As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with "open
-source" software or software in the public domain. Microsoft's principal
-opposition is to "free software" licensed under a "copyleft" license,
-meaning a license that requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any
-derivative work. See Bradford L. Smith, "The Future of Software: Enabling
-the Marketplace to Decide," <em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source
-Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
-Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
-Research, 2002), 69, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. See also Craig Mundie,
-Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
-Model</em>, discussion at New York University Stern School of
-Business (3 May 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2574193" href="#id2574193" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3105587" href="#id3105587" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
+
+
+Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
+sofistikert. De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
+programvare som er "åpen kildekode" eller programvare som er allemannseie.
+Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot "fri programvare" lisensiert med en
+"copyleft"-lisens, som betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal
+adoptere same vilkår for ethvert avledet verk. Se Bradford L. Smith, "The
+Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace to Decide,"
+<em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source Software</em>
+(Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies,
+American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2002), 69,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#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 name="ftn.id3105949" href="#id3105949" 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 name="ftn.id2574390" href="#id2574390" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3106146" href="#id3106146" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
-See Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
-210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id2573563"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2574648" href="#id2574648" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
+Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="id3105303"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3106404" href="#id3106404" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
-John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, September 2003,
-available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>;
-Paul R. La Monica, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," CNN/Money, 8 September
-2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#66</a>; Soni Sangha and Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, "Sued for a
-Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers," <em class="citetitle">New York
-Daily News</em>, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits
-Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in
-N.Y. Among Defendants," <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, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2574694" href="#id2574694" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
+John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, september 2003,
+tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," CNN/Money, 8
+september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis
+Furman sammen med Robert Gearty, "Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among
+261 Cited as Sharers," <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>,
+9. september 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets;
+Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,"
+<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 name="ftn.id3106450" href="#id3106450" 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 name="ftn.id2574712" href="#id2574712" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3106468" href="#id3106468" 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 name="ftn.id2574782" href="#id2574782" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3106539" href="#id3106539" 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 name="ftn.id2574803" href="#id2574803" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3106560" href="#id3106560" 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 1
6."><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2574840"></a>Kapittel 16. </h2></div></div></div><p></p></div></div><div class="part" title="Del VI. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Del VI. Etterord</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Etterord"><div></div><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1
7. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Kapittel 17. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><p>
</p><p>
Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
</p><p>
-Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter 10, 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 privacy would not be assured. But that's because the CIA
-would (we hope) find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to
-track you. But for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The
-highly inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly
-robust amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not
-by law (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="id
2575003"></a><p>
+Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>11</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
+privacy would not be assured. But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
+find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
+for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
+inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
+amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
+(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="id
3106772"></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
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="id2575049" href="#ftn.id2575049" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And whether you're in favor of
+did.<sup>[<a name="id3106810" href="#ftn.id3106810" 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
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2575084"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3106845"></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
as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
share software would be fundamentally weakened.
</p><p>
-Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating
-system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was
-the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's "Linux" kernel was
-added to produce the GNU/Linux operating system. <a class="indexterm" name="id2575156"></a>
+Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
+operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
+overleve. Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som "Linux"-kjernen til
+Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å produsere
+GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id3106923"></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="id2575278"></a>
+inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free. <a class="indexterm" name="id3107033"></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></div><div class="section" title="Gjenoppbygg
eing av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>Gjenoppbyggeing av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section" title="Gjenoppbygg
ing av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the
increasing control effected through law and technology.
</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="id2575403"></a>
+creativity. <a class="indexterm" name="id3107173"></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
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="id2575487" href="#ftn.id2575487" 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="id3107257" href="#ftn.id3107257" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release into the creative
environment content that others can build upon, so that their form of
creativity might grow.
</p><p>
to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
2575567"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
3107337"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>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
</p><p>
Why?
</p><p>
-As I suggested in chapter 10, 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
+As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 11. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>11</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
protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
</p><p>
But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
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="id2575666" href="#ftn.id2575666" 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="id3107442" href="#ftn.id3107442" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>—but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
</p><p>
not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
-permission.<sup>[<a name="id2575790" href="#ftn.id2575790" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
+permission.<sup>[<a name="id3107565" href="#ftn.id3107565" 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
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="id2575921" href="#ftn.id2575921" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
+fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id3107690" href="#ftn.id3107690" 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="id2576008" href="#ftn.id2576008" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
+for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id3107778" href="#ftn.id3107778" 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="id2576031"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="id3107797"></a>
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
</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="id2576124" href="#ftn.id2576124" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
+dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id3107892" href="#ftn.id3107892" 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.
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="id2576148" href="#ftn.id2576148" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
+abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id3107916" href="#ftn.id3107916" 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="id2576186"></a>
+after the creative work is done. <a class="indexterm" name="id3107946"></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="id2576229" href="#ftn.id2576229" 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="id3107990" href="#ftn.id3107990" 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
</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 5, they enable
-four different kinds of sharing:
+all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title='Kapittel 6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'>6</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 5, 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.
+As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title='Kapittel 6. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'>6</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.
</p><p>
Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
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="id2576462" href="#ftn.id2576462" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
+content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.<sup>[<a name="id3108240" href="#ftn.id3108240" 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="id2576617" href="#ftn.id2576617" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
+Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id3108394" href="#ftn.id3108394" 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
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="id2576992" href="#ftn.id2576992" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
+åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id3108769" href="#ftn.id3108769" 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="id2577024" href="#ftn.id2577024" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup> De ser et system som har
+lav.<sup>[<a name="id3108802" href="#ftn.id3108802" 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="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#id2577197">17. </a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2575049" href="#id2575049" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3106810" href="#id3106810" 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 name="ftn.id2575487" href="#id2575487" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
+between technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3107257" href="#id3107257" 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 name="ftn.id2575666" href="#id2575666" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3107442" href="#id3107442" 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 name="ftn.id2575790" href="#id2575790" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
+by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3107565" href="#id3107565" 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 name="ftn.id2575921" href="#id2575921" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3107690" href="#id3107690" 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 name="ftn.id2576008" href="#id2576008" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3107778" href="#id3107778" 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 name="ftn.id2576124" href="#id2576124" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3107892" href="#id3107892" 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 name="ftn.id2576148" href="#id2576148" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3107916" href="#id3107916" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2576229" href="#id2576229" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3107990" href="#id3107990" 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="id2575060"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2576462" href="#id2576462" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
+187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="id3106821"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3108240" href="#id3108240" 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 name="ftn.id2576617" href="#id2576617" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3108394" href="#id3108394" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
Possibilities</em> (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at
DAT. Unlike Fisher's, Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly
proportionally, though more popular artists would get more than the less
popular. As is typical with Stallman, his proposal predates the current
-debate by about a decade. See <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2576717"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2576725"></a>
-</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id2576992" href="#id2576992" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
+debate by about a decade. See <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3108494"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3108502"></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3108769" href="#id3108769" 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 name="ftn.id2577024" href="#id2577024" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
+</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a name="ftn.id3108802" href="#id3108802" 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="id2577002"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1
7."><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2577197"></a>Kapittel 17. </h2></div></div></div><p></p></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 18. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 18. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
+<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76. <a class="indexterm" name="id3108779"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 18. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 18. 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
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></body></html>
+</p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3109133"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symboler</h3><dl><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>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</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>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>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="#id3086791">"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>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>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>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="#id3086791">"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>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="#id3086791">"Piratvirksomhet"</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</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>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>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><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>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>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</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 operating system, <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>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</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="#id3086791">"Piratvirksomhet"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3086791">"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>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>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>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></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 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>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 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>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</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="#id3086791">"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
