<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Free Culture</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.78.1"><meta name="description" content="ABOUT THE AUTHOR LAWRENCE LESSIG (http://www.lessig.org), professor of law and a John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is chairman of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). The author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), Lessig is a member of the boards of the Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, twice listed in BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, and named one of Scientific American's 50 visionaries. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="en" class="book"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Free Culture</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">HOW BIG MEDIA USES TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW TO LOCK DOWN
- CULTURE AND CONTROL CREATIVITY</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">Version 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice"><a name="idp
4029920"></a><p>
+ CULTURE AND CONTROL CREATIVITY</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">Version 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice"><a name="idp
2767552"></a><p>
<span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="38" alt="Creative Commons, Some rights reserved"></span>
</p><p>
This version of <em class="citetitle">Free Culture</em> is licensed under
</p><p>
Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp
62976"></a></h1></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp
291776"></a></h1></div></div></div><p>
To Eric Eldred — whose work first drew me to this cause, and for whom
it continues still.
-</p></div><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">PREFACE</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PIRACY</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">CHAPTER FOUR: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">CHAPTER FIVE: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PROPERTY</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Together</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">PUZZLES</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">BALANCES</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">AFTERWORD</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">US, NOW</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">THEM, SOON</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. More Formalities</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">REGISTRATION AND RENEWAL</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">MARKING</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">NOTES</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp10
697424">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="preface"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>PREFACE</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">PREFACE</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PIRACY</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">CHAPTER FOUR: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">CHAPTER FIVE: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piracy</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PROPERTY</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Together</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">PUZZLES</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">BALANCES</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">AFTERWORD</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">US, NOW</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">THEM, SOON</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. More Formalities</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">REGISTRATION AND RENEWAL</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">MARKING</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">NOTES</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp10
854176">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="preface"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>PREFACE</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
<span class="bold"><strong>At the end</strong></span> of his review of my first
book, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, David
Pogue, a brilliant writer and author of countless technical and
off. It is an argument about how the battles that now rage regarding life
on-line have fundamentally affected <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">people who aren't online.</span>»</span> There
is no switch that will insulate us from the Internet's effect.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
78560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
176704"></a><p>
But unlike <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, the argument here is not much
about the Internet itself. It is instead about the consequence of the
Internet to a part of our tradition that is much more fundamental,
That tradition is the way our culture gets made. As I explain in the
pages that follow, we come from a tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture</span>»</span>—not
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free beer</span>»</span> (to borrow a phrase from the founder of the
-free software movement<a href="#ftn.idp100080" class="footnote" name="idp100080"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>), but <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free speech,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free markets,</span>»</span>
+free software movement<a href="#ftn.idp180576" class="footnote" name="idp180576"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>), but <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free speech,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free markets,</span>»</span>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free trade,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free enterprise,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free will,</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free elections.</span>»</span> A
free culture supports and protects creators and innovators. It does
this directly by granting intellectual property rights. But it does so
disinterested, then the story I tell here will trouble you. For the
changes I describe affect values that both sides of our political
culture deem fundamental.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6771280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6772032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6772784"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
207008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp207824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp208640"></a><p>
We saw a glimpse of this bipartisan outrage in the early summer of
2003. As the FCC considered changes in media ownership rules that
would relax limits on media concentration, an extraordinary coalition
power—political, corporate, media, cultural—should be anathema to
conservatives. The diffusion of power through local control, thereby
encouraging individual participation, is the essence of federalism and
-the greatest expression of democracy.<a href="#ftn.idp105424" class="footnote" name="idp105424"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a>
+the greatest expression of democracy.<a href="#ftn.idp203648" class="footnote" name="idp203648"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This idea is an element of the argument of <em class="citetitle">Free Culture</em>, though my
focus is not just on the concentration of power produced by
altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry
you—whether or not you care about the Internet, and whether you're on
Safire's left or on his right.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
778688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
138144"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The inspiration</strong></span> for the title and for
much of the argument of this book comes from the work of Richard
Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. Indeed, as I reread
book is written.
</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.preface01" class="footnote"><p><a href="#preface01" class="para"><sup class="para">[1] </sup></a>
David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 30 January 2000.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp100080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp100080" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp180576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp180576" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>
Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Societies</em> 57 (Joshua Gay, ed. 2002).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp105424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp105424" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a> William Safire,
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp203648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp203648" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a> William Safire,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 May 2003.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6776912"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6136368"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Chapter 0. INTRODUCTION</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxwrightbrothers"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>On December 17</strong></span>, 1903, on a windy North Carolina beach for just
shy of one hundred seconds, the Wright brothers demonstrated that a
At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American
law held that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface
of his land, but all the land below, down to the center of the earth,
-and all the space above, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6794032" class="footnote" name="idp6794032"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a>
+and all the space above, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6153872" class="footnote" name="idp6153872"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a>
For many
years, scholars had puzzled about how best to interpret the idea that
rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean that you owned the
stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and regular trespass?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
795296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
155136"></a><p>
Then came airplanes, and for the first time, this principle of American
law—deep within the foundations of our tradition, and acknowledged
by the most important legal thinkers of our past—mattered. If
my field? Do I have the right to banish it from my property? Am I allowed
to enter into an exclusive license with Delta Airlines? Could we
set up an auction to decide how much these rights are worth?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
797152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6797904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
156992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6157744"></a><p>
In 1945, these questions became a federal case. When North Carolina
farmers Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens
because of low-flying military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently
Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had said, their land reached to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an indefinite
extent, upwards,</span>»</span> then the government was trespassing on their
property, and the Causbys wanted it to stop.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
800016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6800768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
159856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6160608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></a><p>
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had
declared the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the
heavens, then Congress's declaration could well have been an unconstitutional
such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways,
seriously interfere with their control and development in the public
interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only
-the public has a just claim.<a href="#ftn.idm89920" class="footnote" name="idm89920"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a>
+the public has a just claim.<a href="#ftn.idp6166768" class="footnote" name="idp6166768"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common sense revolts at the idea.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
m84624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p6172016"></a><p>
This is how the law usually works. Not often this abruptly or
impatiently, but eventually, this is how it works. It was Douglas's style not to
dither. Other justices would have blathered on for pages to reach the
genius of a common law system, as ours is, that the law adjusts to the
technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were
as solid as rock in one age crumble in another.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
823856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6824496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6825248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
174896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6175680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6176496"></a><p>
Or at least, this is how things happen when there's no one powerful
on the other side of the change. The Causbys were just farmers. And
though there were no doubt many like them who were upset by the
end, the force of what seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">obvious</span>»</span> to everyone else—the power of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span>—would prevail. Their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">private interest</span>»</span> would not be
allowed to defeat an obvious public gain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
828848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6829824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6830800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6831776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6833984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6834736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6835488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
180384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6181712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6183056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6184032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6186240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6186992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6187744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> is one of
America's forgotten inventor geniuses. He came to the great American
inventor scene just after the titans Thomas Edison and Alexander
fire. … Sousa marches were played from records and a piano solo
and guitar number were performed. … The music was projected with a
live-ness rarely if ever heard before from a radio <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">music
-box.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6843408" class="footnote" name="idp6843408"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a>
+box.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6196192" class="footnote" name="idp6196192"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrca"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediaownershipconcentrationin"></a><p>
As our own common sense tells us, Armstrong had discovered a vastly
superior radio technology. But at the time of his invention, Armstrong
the United States, but the stations in large cities were all owned by
a handful of networks.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
849072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
201840"></a><p>
RCA's president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong's, was eager
that Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. So
Sarnoff was quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device
I thought Armstrong would invent some kind of a filter to remove
static from our AM radio. I didn't think he'd start a
revolution— start up a whole damn new industry to compete with
-RCA.<a href="#ftn.idp6840000" class="footnote" name="idp6840000"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
854912"></a><p>
+RCA.<a href="#ftn.idp6192864" class="footnote" name="idp6192864"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
207728"></a><p>
Armstrong's invention threatened RCA's AM empire, so the company
launched a campaign to smother FM radio. While FM may have been a
superior technology, Sarnoff was a superior tactician. As one author
this threat to corporate position. For FM, if allowed to develop
unrestrained, posed … a complete reordering of radio power
… and the eventual overthrow of the carefully restricted AM system
-on which RCA had grown to power.<a href="#ftn.idp6858432" class="footnote" name="idp6858432"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a>
+on which RCA had grown to power.<a href="#ftn.idp6211248" class="footnote" name="idp6211248"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfcconfmradio"></a><p>
RCA at first kept the technology in house, insisting that further
tests were needed. When, after two years of testing, Armstrong grew
The series of body blows that FM radio received right after the
war, in a series of rulings manipulated through the FCC by the
big radio interests, were almost incredible in their force and
-deviousness.<a href="#ftn.idp6862976" class="footnote" name="idp6862976"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
863744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6864720"></a><p>
+deviousness.<a href="#ftn.idp6215792" class="footnote" name="idp6215792"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
216560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6217536"></a><p>
To make room in the spectrum for RCA's latest gamble, television,
FM radio users were to be moved to a totally new spectrum band. The
power of FM radio stations was also cut, meaning FM could no longer
FM relaying stations would mean radio stations would have to buy
wired links from AT&T.) The spread of FM radio was thus choked, at
least temporarily.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
866496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6867472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
219312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6220288"></a><p>
Armstrong resisted RCA's efforts. In response, RCA resisted
Armstrong's patents. After incorporating FM technology into the
emerging standard for television, RCA declared the patents
would not even cover Armstrong's lawyers' fees. Defeated, broken, and
now broke, in 1954 Armstrong wrote a short note to his wife and then
stepped out of a thirteenth-story window to his death.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
868704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6870560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6871536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6872288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
221520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6223376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6224352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6225104"></a><p>
This is how the law sometimes works. Not often this tragically, and
rarely with heroic drama, but sometimes, this is how it works. From
the beginning, government and government agencies have been subject to
another, are sustained through this subtle corruption of our political
process. RCA had what the Causbys did not: the power to stifle the
effect of technological change.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6874528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6875504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
13360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp14576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There's no</strong></span> single inventor of the Internet. Nor is there any good date
upon which to mark its birth. Yet in a very short time, the Internet
has become part of ordinary American life. According to the Pew
Internet and American Life Project, 58 percent of Americans had access
to the Internet in 2002, up from 49 percent two years
-before.<a href="#ftn.idp6879184" class="footnote" name="idp6879184"><sup class="footnote">[10]</sup></a>
+before.<a href="#ftn.idp18944" class="footnote" name="idp18944"><sup class="footnote">[10]</sup></a>
That number could well exceed two thirds of the nation by the end
of 2004.
</p><p>
old as the Republic itself. Most, if they recognized this change,
would reject it. Yet most don't even see the change that the Internet
has introduced.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
882992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6883968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6886208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
245024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6246000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6248240"></a><p>
We can glimpse a sense of this change by distinguishing between
commercial and noncommercial culture, and by mapping the law's
regulation of each. By <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commercial culture</span>»</span> I mean that part of our
then quite extensively, the law protected the incentives of creators by
granting them exclusive rights to their creative work, so that they could
sell those exclusive rights in a commercial
-marketplace.<a href="#ftn.idp6892896" class="footnote" name="idp6892896"><sup class="footnote">[11]</sup></a>
+marketplace.<a href="#ftn.idp6254592" class="footnote" name="idp6254592"><sup class="footnote">[11]</sup></a>
This is also, of course, an important part of creativity and culture,
and it has become an increasingly important part in America. But in no
sense was it dominant within our tradition. It was instead just one
part, a controlled part, balanced with the free.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
895552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6896560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
257248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6258256"></a><p>
This rough divide between the free and the controlled has now
-been erased.<a href="#ftn.idp6897824" class="footnote" name="idp6897824"><sup class="footnote">[12]</sup></a>
+been erased.<a href="#ftn.idp6259520" class="footnote" name="idp6259520"><sup class="footnote">[12]</sup></a>
The Internet has set the stage for this erasure and, pushed by big
media, the law has now affected it. For the first time in our
tradition, the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share
free and uses of our culture that were only upon permission—has
been undone. The consequence is that we are less and less a free
culture, more and more a permission culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
899760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6901328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6902080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
261456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6263024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6263776"></a><p>
This change gets justified as necessary to protect commercial
creativity. And indeed, protectionism is precisely its
motivation. But the protectionism that justifies the changes that I
shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect
them. It is the story of RCA and Armstrong; it is the dream of the
Causbys.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
903904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
265600"></a><p>
For the Internet has unleashed an extraordinary possibility for many
to participate in the process of building and cultivating a culture
that reaches far beyond local boundaries. That power has changed the
more efficient, more vibrant technology for building culture. They are
succeeding in their plan to remake the Internet before the Internet
remakes them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
907504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6908368"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
269200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6270064"></a><p>
It doesn't seem this way to many. The battles over copyright and the
Internet seem remote to most. To the few who follow them, they seem
be permitted, and whether <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> will be protected. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war</span>»</span> that
has been waged against the technologies of the Internet—what
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) president Jack Valenti
-calls his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">own terrorist war</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6911680" class="footnote" name="idp6911680"><sup class="footnote">[13]</sup></a>—has been framed as a battle about the
+calls his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">own terrorist war</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6273376" class="footnote" name="idp6273376"><sup class="footnote">[13]</sup></a>—has been framed as a battle about the
rule of law and respect for property. To know which side to take in this
war, most think that we need only decide whether we're for property or
against it.
and a much more dramatic change. My fear is that unless we come to see
this change, the war to rid the world of Internet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates</span>»</span> will also rid our
culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
916256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6917264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6918272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6919024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
277952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6278960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6279968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6280720"></a><p>
These values built a tradition that, for at least the first 180 years of
our Republic, guaranteed creators the right to build freely upon their
past, and protected creators and innovators from either state or private
control. The First Amendment protected creators against state control.
-And as Professor Neil Netanel powerfully argues,<a href="#ftn.idp6920384" class="footnote" name="idp6920384"><sup class="footnote">[14]</sup></a>
+And as Professor Neil Netanel powerfully argues,<a href="#ftn.idp6282080" class="footnote" name="idp6282080"><sup class="footnote">[14]</sup></a>
copyright law, properly balanced, protected creators against private
control. Our tradition was thus neither Soviet nor the tradition of
patrons. It instead carved out a wide berth within which creators
Internet technologies to continue. There will be great harm to our
tradition and culture if it is allowed to continue unchecked. We must
come to understand the source of this war. We must resolve it soon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
926288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6927040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
287984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6288736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Like the Causbys'</strong></span> battle, this war is, in part, about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The
property of this war is not as tangible as the Causbys', and no
innocent chicken has yet to lose its life. Yet the ideas surrounding
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trespassing</span>»</span> upon legitimate claims of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> It is as plain to
us as it was to them that the law should intervene to stop this
trespass.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
932704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6933456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6934208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
294400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6295152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6295904"></a><p>
And thus, when geeks and technologists defend their Armstrong or
Wright brothers technology, most of us are simply unsympathetic.
Common sense does not revolt. Unlike in the case of the unlucky
the lucky Wright brothers, the Internet has not inspired a revolution
on its side.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
935984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
297680"></a><p>
My hope is to push this common sense along. I have become increasingly
amazed by the power of this idea of intellectual property and, more
importantly, its power to disable critical thought by policy makers
silent in the face of these extremes because, as with Armstrong versus
RCA, the more powerful side has ensured that it has the more powerful
view?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
941408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6942160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
303104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6303856"></a><p>
I don't mean to be mysterious. My own views are resolved. I believe it
was right for common sense to revolt against the extremism of the
Causbys. I believe it would be right for common sense to revolt
sheriff arresting an airplane for trespass. But the consequences of
this silliness will be much more profound.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
944400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
306096"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The struggle</strong></span> that rages just now centers on two ideas: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> and
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> My aim in this book's next two parts is to explore these two
ideas.
depressingly compromised process of making law. This book is the story
of one more consequence of this form of corruption—a consequence
to which most of us remain oblivious.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6794032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6794032" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6153872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6153872" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>
St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South Hackensack, N.J.:
Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idm89920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idm89920" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6166768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6166768" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>
United States v. Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. The Court did find
that there could be a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> if the government's use of its land
effectively destroyed the value of the Causbys' land. This example was
Authorship,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. See also Paul
Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1984),
1112–13.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idm86512"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idm86704"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6843408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6843408" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6170112"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6169728"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6196192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6196192" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>
Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong</em>
(Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6840000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6840000" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a> See <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6192864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6192864" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a> See <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the
Electronic Era,</span>»</span> First Electronic Church of America, at
www.webstationone.com/fecha, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6858432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6858432" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6862976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6862976" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6211248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6211248" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6215792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6215792" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6879184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6879184" class="para"><sup class="para">[10] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp18944" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp18944" class="para"><sup class="para">[10] </sup></a>
Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
Life Project, 15 April 2003: 6, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6892896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6892896" class="para"><sup class="para">[11] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6254592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6254592" class="para"><sup class="para">[11] </sup></a>
This is not the only purpose of copyright, though it is the overwhelmingly
primary purpose of the copyright established in the federal constitution.
State copyright law historically protected not just the commercial interest in
control the spread of facts about them. See Samuel D. Warren and Louis
D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>»</span> Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193,
198–200.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idm87408"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6897824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6897824" class="para"><sup class="para">[12] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6169984"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6259520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6259520" class="para"><sup class="para">[12] </sup></a>
See Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York: Prometheus Books,
2001), ch. 13.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6898592"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6911680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6911680" class="para"><sup class="para">[13] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6260288"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6273376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6273376" class="para"><sup class="para">[13] </sup></a>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates
Use New Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
Times</em>, 17 January 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6920384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6920384" class="para"><sup class="para">[14] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6282080" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6282080" class="para"><sup class="para">[14] </sup></a>
Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law
Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6921664"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PIRACY</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
952560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6954800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6955552"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6283360"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PIRACY</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
314256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6316496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6317248"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Since the inception</strong></span> of the law regulating creative property, there has
been a war against <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> The precise contours of this concept,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is easy to
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
A person may use the copy by playing it, but he has no right to
rob the author of the profit, by multiplying copies and disposing
-of them for his own use.<a href="#ftn.idp6959040" class="footnote" name="idp6959040"><sup class="footnote">[15]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
960704"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6961808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
+of them for his own use.<a href="#ftn.idp6320736" class="footnote" name="idp6320736"><sup class="footnote">[15]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
322400"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6323504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
Today we are in the middle of another <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war</span>»</span> against <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> The
Internet has provoked this war. The Internet makes possible the
efficient spread of content. Peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing is among
sharing of copyrighted content. That sharing in turn has excited the
war, as copyright owners fear the sharing will <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob the author of the
profit.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
967168"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
328864"></a><p>
The warriors have turned to the courts, to the legislatures, and
increasingly to technology to defend their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> against this
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> A generation of Americans, the warriors warn, is being
should have their permission. The taking of something of value
from someone else without permission is wrong. It is a form of
piracy.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
973664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6974416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6975168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
335360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6336112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6336864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
This view runs deep within the current debates. It is what NYU law
professor Rochelle Dreyfuss criticizes as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span>
-theory of creative property<a href="#ftn.idp6979920" class="footnote" name="idp6979920"><sup class="footnote">[16]</sup></a>
+theory of creative property<a href="#ftn.idp6341616" class="footnote" name="idp6341616"><sup class="footnote">[16]</sup></a>
—if there is value, then someone must have a
right to that value. It is the perspective that led a composers' rights
organization, ASCAP, to sue the Girl Scouts for failing to pay for the
-songs that girls sang around Girl Scout campfires.<a href="#ftn.idp6970160" class="footnote" name="idp6970160"><sup class="footnote">[17]</sup></a>
+songs that girls sang around Girl Scout campfires.<a href="#ftn.idp6331856" class="footnote" name="idp6331856"><sup class="footnote">[17]</sup></a>
There was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">value</span>»</span> (the songs) so there must have been a
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span>—even against the Girl Scouts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
986544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
348240"></a><p>
This idea is certainly a possible understanding of how creative
property should work. It might well be a possible design for a system
of law protecting creative property. But the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span>
theory of creative property has never been America's theory of
creative property. It has never taken hold within our law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
988832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
350528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
Instead, in our tradition, intellectual property is an instrument. It
sets the groundwork for a richly creative society but remains
subservient to the value of creativity. The current debate has this
work on the one hand and building upon or transforming that work on
the other. Copyright law at its birth had only publishing as its concern;
copyright law today regulates both.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
994576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
356272"></a><p>
Before the technologies of the Internet, this conflation didn't matter
all that much. The technologies of publishing were expensive; that
meant the vast majority of publishing was commercial. Commercial
entities could bear the burden of the law—even the burden of the
Byzantine complexity that copyright law has become. It was just one
more expense of doing business.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
995856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6997392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6998144"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
357552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6359088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6359840"></a><p>
But with the birth of the Internet, this natural limit to the reach of
the law has disappeared. The law controls not just the creativity of
commercial creators but effectively that of anyone. Although that
of obscenely severe penalties. We may
be seeing, as Richard Florida writes, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rise of the Creative
-Class.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7001088" class="footnote" name="idp7001088"><sup class="footnote">[18]</sup></a>
+Class.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6363488" class="footnote" name="idp6363488"><sup class="footnote">[18]</sup></a>
Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary rise of regulation of
this creative class.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7004528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6366928"></a><p>
These burdens make no sense in our tradition. We should begin by
understanding that tradition a bit more and by placing in their proper
context the current battles about behavior labeled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span>
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6959040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6959040" class="para"><sup class="para">[15] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6320736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6320736" class="para"><sup class="para">[15] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6979920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6979920" class="para"><sup class="para">[16] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6341616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6341616" class="para"><sup class="para">[16] </sup></a>
See Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6970160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6970160" class="para"><sup class="para">[17] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6331856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6331856" class="para"><sup class="para">[17] </sup></a>
Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21 August 1996, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>; Jonathan
Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 24 November 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6984768"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7001088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7001088" class="para"><sup class="para">[18] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6346464"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6363488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6363488" class="para"><sup class="para">[18] </sup></a>
In <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York:
Basic Books, 2002), Richard Florida documents a shift in the nature of
and significance of this change, but I also believe the conditions
under which it will be enabled are much more tenuous.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7002656"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7003408"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6365056"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6365808"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Chapter 1. CHAPTER ONE: Creators</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimatedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsanimated"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatwillie"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmickeymouse"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1928</strong></span>, a cartoon character was born. An early Mickey Mouse
made his debut in May of that year, in a silent flop called <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
They responded almost instinctively to this union of sound and
motion. I thought they were kidding me. So they put me in the audience
and ran the action again. It was terrible, but it was wonderful! And
-it was something new!<a href="#ftn.idp7021232" class="footnote" name="idp7021232"><sup class="footnote">[19]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7022720"></a><p>
+it was something new!<a href="#ftn.idp6383632" class="footnote" name="idp6383632"><sup class="footnote">[19]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6385120"></a><p>
Disney's then partner, and one of animation's most extraordinary
talents, Ub Iwerks, put it more strongly: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I have never been so thrilled
in my life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.</span>»</span>
Disney's invention that set the standard that others struggled to
match. And quite often, Disney's great genius, his spark of
creativity, was built upon the work of others.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7024720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6387120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
This much is familiar. What you might not know is that 1928 also marks
another important transition. In that year, a comic (as opposed to
cartoon) genius created his last independently produced silent film.
Willie.
The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat Willie is a
-direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<a href="#ftn.idp7035072" class="footnote" name="idp7035072"><sup class="footnote">[20]</sup></a>
+direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<a href="#ftn.idp6397360" class="footnote" name="idp6397360"><sup class="footnote">[20]</sup></a>
and both are built upon a common song as a source. It is not just from
the invention of synchronized sound in <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> that we
get <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of
Steamboat Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span>
that we get Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey
Mouse.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7041120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7042096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7043072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7044048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6403408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6404384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6405360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6406336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowing</span>»</span> was nothing unique, either for Disney or for the
industry. Disney was always parroting the feature-length mainstream
-films of his day.<a href="#ftn.idp7048528" class="footnote" name="idp7048528"><sup class="footnote">[21]</sup></a>
+films of his day.<a href="#ftn.idp6410816" class="footnote" name="idp6410816"><sup class="footnote">[21]</sup></a>
So did many others. Early cartoons are filled with
knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of
ancient stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the
creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his
own extraordinary talent, and then burned that mix into the soul of
his culture. Rip, mix, and burn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7061152"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6423520"></a><p>
This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should
remember and celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no
creativity except this kind. We don't need to go that far to recognize
would be a bit misleading. It is, more precisely, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney
creativity</span>»</span>—a form of expression and genius that builds upon the
culture around us and makes it something different.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7063664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7064640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7065616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6426032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6427008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6427984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><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.<a href="#ftn.idp7063280" class="footnote" name="idp7063280"><sup class="footnote">[22]</sup></a>
+copyrighted.<a href="#ftn.idp6425648" class="footnote" name="idp6425648"><sup class="footnote">[22]</sup></a>
That means that for thirty years, on average, the authors or
copyright holders of a creative work had an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive right</span>»</span> to control
certain uses of the work. To use this copyrighted work in limited ways
for Disney to use and build upon in 1928. It was free for
anyone— whether connected or not, whether rich or not, whether
approved or not—to use and build upon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7075632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7076992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6438000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6439360"></a><p>
This is the ways things always were—until quite recently. For most
of our history, the public domain was just over the horizon. From
until 1978, the average copyright term was never more than thirty-two
to now be free for the next Walt Disney to build upon without
permission. Yet today, the public domain is presumptive only for
content from before the Great Depression.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7079216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7080192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7081168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7082144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7083120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7084096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6441584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6442560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6443536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6444512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6445488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6446464"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Of course</strong></span>, Walt Disney had no monopoly on <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney creativity.</span>»</span>
Nor does America. The norm of free culture has, until recently, and
except within totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and quite
competes with that market, but there is no sustained effort by those
who control the commercial manga market to shut the doujinshi market
down. It flourishes, despite the competition and despite the law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7106272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6468320"></a><p>
The most puzzling feature of the doujinshi market, for those trained
in the law, at least, is that it is allowed to exist at all. Under
Japanese copyright law, which in this respect (on paper) mirrors
the permission of the original copyright owner is illegal. It is an
infringement of the original copyright to make a copy or a derivative
work without the original copyright owner's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7109312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6471360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
Yet this illegal market exists and indeed flourishes in Japan, and in
the view of many, it is precisely because it exists that Japanese manga
flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
other. … That's how [the artists] learn to draw — by going into comic
books and not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them</span>»</span>
-and building from them.<a href="#ftn.idp7113056" class="footnote" name="idp7113056"><sup class="footnote">[23]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7114336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7115312"></a><p>
+and building from them.<a href="#ftn.idp6475104" class="footnote" name="idp6475104"><sup class="footnote">[23]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6476384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6477360"></a><p>
American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part
because of the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are
allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">there are these rules
and you have to stick to them.</span>»</span> There are things Superman <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cannot</span>»</span>
do. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">As a creator, it's frustrating having to stick to some parameters
which are fifty years old.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7117920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7120384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6479968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6482432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></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.<a href="#ftn.idp7123088" class="footnote" name="idp7123088"><sup class="footnote">[24]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7125616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7126592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7127568"></a><p>
+banned, so the law does not ban doujinshi.<a href="#ftn.idp6485136" class="footnote" name="idp6485136"><sup class="footnote">[24]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6487664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6488640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6489616"></a><p>
The problem with this story, however, as Mehra plainly acknowledges,
is that the mechanism producing this laissez faire response is not
clear. It may well be that the market as a whole is better off if
individual manga artists have sued doujinshi artists, why is there not
a more general pattern of blocking this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free taking</span>»</span> by the doujinshi
culture?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7129840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7130816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6491888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6492864"></a><p>
I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question
as often as I could. Perhaps the best account in the end was offered by
a friend from a major Japanese law firm. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We don't have enough
uncompensated sharing? Does piracy here hurt the victims of the
piracy, or does it help them? Would lawyers fighting this piracy help
their clients or hurt them?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7134464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6496512"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Let's pause</strong></span> for a moment.
</p><p>
If you're like I was a decade ago, or like most people are when they
We live in a world that celebrates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> 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
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7138128" class="footnote" name="idp7138128"><sup class="footnote">[25]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7290800" class="footnote" name="idp7290800"><sup class="footnote">[25]</sup></a>
A large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large,
diverse, and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual
property.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
144240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
296928"></a><p>
But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is
plenty of value out there that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> doesn't capture. I don't
mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">money can't buy you love,</span>»</span> but rather, value that is plainly
things remain free for the taking within a free culture, and that
freedom is good.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
149776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7152240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
302464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7304928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
156944"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
309632"></a><p>
Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to
say that the copycat comic artists are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing.</span>»</span> This form of Walt
Disney creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in
particular find it hard to say why.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
159504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7160480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7161456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7162432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7163408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7164384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7165360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
312192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7313168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7314144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7315120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7316096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7317072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7318048"></a><p>
It's the same with a thousand examples that appear everywhere once you
begin to look. Scientists build upon the work of other scientists
without asking or paying for the privilege. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Excuse me, Professor
every society has left a certain bit of its culture free for the taking—free
societies more fully than unfree, perhaps, but all societies to some degree.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
168592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
321280"></a><p>
The hard question is therefore not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> a
culture is free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard
question instead is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?</span>»</span>
Free cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to
build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less. Ours was a
free culture. It is becoming much less so.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7172848"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7021232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7021232" class="para"><sup class="para">[19] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7325536"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6383632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6383632" class="para"><sup class="para">[19] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7035072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7035072" class="para"><sup class="para">[20] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6397360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6397360" class="para"><sup class="para">[20] </sup></a>
I am grateful to David Gerstein and his careful history, described at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.
(Baron), and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). A sixth song, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the
Straw,</span>»</span> was already in the public domain. Letter from David Smith to
Harry Surden, 10 July 2003, on file with author.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7048528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7048528" class="para"><sup class="para">[21] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6410816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6410816" class="para"><sup class="para">[21] </sup></a>
He was also a fan of the public domain. See Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5 March 2002, at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7063280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7063280" class="para"><sup class="para">[22] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6425648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6425648" class="para"><sup class="para">[22] </sup></a>
Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">average</span>»</span> term by
term is 32.2 years. For the renewal data and other relevant data, see the
Web site associated with this book, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #6</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7113056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7113056" class="para"><sup class="para">[23] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6475104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6475104" class="para"><sup class="para">[23] </sup></a>
For an excellent history, see Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing Comics</em> (New
York: Perennial, 2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7123088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7123088" class="para"><sup class="para">[24] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6485136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6485136" class="para"><sup class="para">[24] </sup></a>
See Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law
artists may be better off collectively if they set aside their
individual self-interest and decide not to press their legal
rights. This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma solved.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7138128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7138128" class="para"><sup class="para">[25] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7290800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7290800" class="para"><sup class="para">[25] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7138768"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7291440"></a>
The term <em class="citetitle">intellectual property</em> is of relatively recent origin. See
Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York
University Press, 2001). See also Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>
describes a set of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights — copyright, patents,
trademark, and trade-secret — but the nature of those rights is
very different.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. CHAPTER TWO: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
175584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. CHAPTER TWO: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
328272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1839</strong></span>, Louis Daguerre invented
the first practical technology for producing what we would call
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">photographs.</span>»</span> Appropriately enough, they were called
zealous and wealthy amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre
Association that helped regulate the industry, as do all such
associations, by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
181008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
333696"></a><p>
Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong.
This pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatic pictures.</span>»</span> William Talbot soon discovered a process for
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. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You press the button and we
-do the rest.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7189056" class="footnote" name="idp7189056"><sup class="footnote">[26]</sup></a> As he described in <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
+do the rest.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7341744" class="footnote" name="idp7341744"><sup class="footnote">[26]</sup></a> 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 person whomsoever can do in making a photograph, from the work
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7112768" class="footnote" name="idp7112768"><sup class="footnote">[27]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
194208"></a><p>
+chemicals.<a href="#ftn.idp6474816" class="footnote" name="idp6474816"><sup class="footnote">[27]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
346896"></a><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, where the film was developed. Over time, of course,
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 11
-percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7196704" class="footnote" name="idp7196704"><sup class="footnote">[28]</sup></a> Eastman Kodak's sales during the same period experienced
-an average annual increase of over 17 percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7197600" class="footnote" name="idp7197600"><sup class="footnote">[29]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
198496"></a><p>
+percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7349392" class="footnote" name="idp7349392"><sup class="footnote">[28]</sup></a> Eastman Kodak's sales during the same period experienced
+an average annual increase of over 17 percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7350288" class="footnote" name="idp7350288"><sup class="footnote">[29]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
351184"></a><p>
The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not
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.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7191488" class="footnote" name="idp7191488"><sup class="footnote">[30]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
201584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7202592"></a><p>
+interpretation or bias.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7344176" class="footnote" name="idp7344176"><sup class="footnote">[30]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
354272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7355280"></a><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 took years of training before they could
creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic tools gave ordinary
people a way to express themselves more easily than any tools could
have before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
205072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
357760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
What was required for this technology to flourish? Obviously,
Eastman's genius was an important part. But also important was the
legal environment within which Eastman's invention grew. For early in
that could well have 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.<a href="#ftn.idp7208320" class="footnote" name="idp7208320"><sup class="footnote">[31]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
211520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><p>
+he wanted. Their answer was no.<a href="#ftn.idp7361008" class="footnote" name="idp7361008"><sup class="footnote">[31]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
364208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><p>
The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
familiar. The photographer was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> something from the person or
building whose photograph he shot—pirating something of
Mickey, so, too, should these photographers not be free to take images
that they thought valuable.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
216528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7217280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
369216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7369968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></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.<a href="#ftn.idp7219872" class="footnote" name="idp7219872"><sup class="footnote">[32]</sup></a>) It may be that this means that the photographer
+the rule should be different for images from private spaces.<a href="#ftn.idp7372560" class="footnote" name="idp7372560"><sup class="footnote">[32]</sup></a>) 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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
223824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
376512"></a><p>
Fortunately for Mr. Eastman, and for photography in general, these
early decisions went in favor of the pirates. In general, no
permission would be required before an image could be captured and
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7225648" class="footnote" name="idp7225648"><sup class="footnote">[33]</sup></a>)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
228848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7229600"></a><p>
+clearing the rights to do the capturing.<a href="#ftn.idp7378336" class="footnote" name="idp7378336"><sup class="footnote">[33]</sup></a>)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
381536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7382288"></a><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, then the photographer would have had to demonstrate
imagine the law then requiring that some form of permission be
demonstrated before a company developed pictures. We could imagine a
system developing to demonstrate that permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
232368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7234576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7235584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
385056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7387264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7388272"></a><p>
But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be
that growth would have been realized. And certainly, nothing like that
growth in a democratic technology of expression would have been
realized.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
237968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7238944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7239920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7240896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7241872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
389792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7391600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7392576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7393552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7394528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>If you drive</strong></span> through San
Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses
painted over with colorful and striking images, and the logo
increasingly so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has
fallen dramatically. As one analyst puts it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Five years ago, a good
real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get
-professional quality for $595.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7251920" class="footnote" name="idp7251920"><sup class="footnote">[34]</sup></a>
+professional quality for $595.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7404576" class="footnote" name="idp7404576"><sup class="footnote">[34]</sup></a>
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 something teachers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">media literacy.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
254608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
407264"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media literacy,</span>»</span> as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of Just
Think!, puts it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">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.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
257072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
409728"></a><p>
This may seem like an odd way to think about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">literacy.</span>»</span> For most
people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway
and noticing split infinitives are the things that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">literate</span>»</span> people know
about.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
259344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7260096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7260848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
412000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7412752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7413504"></a><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,<a href="#ftn.idp7262272" class="footnote" name="idp7262272"><sup class="footnote">[35]</sup></a>
+commercials generally,<a href="#ftn.idp7414928" class="footnote" name="idp7414928"><sup class="footnote">[35]</sup></a>
it is increasingly important to understand the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grammar</span>»</span> 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
how difficult media is. Or more fundamentally, few of us have a sense
of how media works, how it holds an audience or leads it through a
story, how it triggers emotion or builds suspense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
265232"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
417888"></a><p>
It took filmmaking a generation before it could do these things well.
But even then, the knowledge was in the filming, not in writing about
the film. The skill came from experiencing the making of a film, not
from 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="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
269008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
421664"></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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the placement of objects, color, … rhythm, pacing, and
-texture.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7256592" class="footnote" name="idp7256592"><sup class="footnote">[36]</sup></a>
+texture.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7409248" class="footnote" name="idp7409248"><sup class="footnote">[36]</sup></a>
But as computers open up an interactive space where a story is
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">played</span>»</span> as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple
control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7274256" class="footnote" name="idp7274256"><sup class="footnote">[37]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
277168"></a><p>
+to a wildly successful author.<a href="#ftn.idp7426912" class="footnote" name="idp7426912"><sup class="footnote">[37]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
429824"></a><p>
This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley
describes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">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
and this literacy in particular, is to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">empower people to choose the
appropriate language for what they need to create or
-express.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7282896" class="footnote" name="idp7282896"><sup class="footnote">[38]</sup></a> It is to enable students <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to communicate in the
-language of the twenty-first century.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7284880" class="footnote" name="idp7284880"><sup class="footnote">[39]</sup></a>
+express.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7435552" class="footnote" name="idp7435552"><sup class="footnote">[38]</sup></a> It is to enable students <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to communicate in the
+language of the twenty-first century.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7437536" class="footnote" name="idp7437536"><sup class="footnote">[39]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbarishstephanie"></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
failure. But Daley and Barish ran a program that gave kids an
opportunity to use film to express meaning about something the
students know something about—gun violence.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
287264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
439920"></a><p>
The class was held on Friday afternoons, and it created a relatively
new problem for the school. While the challenge in most classes was
getting the kids to come, the challenge in this class was keeping them
can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which
<span class="emphasis"><em>these</em></span> ideas can be expressed well. The power of
this message depended upon its connection to this form of expression.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
293904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
446640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But isn't education about teaching kids to write?</span>»</span> I asked. In part,
make a little movie.</span>»</span> But instead, really help you take these elements
that you understand, that are your language, and construct meaning
about the topic.…
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
300368"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
453104"></a><p>
That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of
course, is eventually, as it has happened in all these classes, they
bump up against the fact, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I need to explain this and I really need
didn't speak very well. But they had come to understand that they
had a lot of power with this language.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
304048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7305024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7306000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7306976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7309184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
456784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7457760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7458736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7459712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7461920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>When two planes</strong></span> crashed into the
World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a
Pennsylvania field, all media around the world shifted to this
and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have
increasingly come to expect it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">news as entertainment,</span>»</span> even if the
entertainment is tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
314224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7314976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
466960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7467712"></a><p>
But in addition to this produced news about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedy of September
11,</span>»</span> 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
the term in his book <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, around a news event that had
captured the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there
was also the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
317600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
470336"></a><p>
I don't mean simply to praise the Internet—though I do think the
people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean
instead to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a
and obviously not just that events are commented upon critically, but
that this mix of captured images, sound, and commentary can be widely
spread practically instantaneously.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
320224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
472960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
September 11 was not an aberration. It was a beginning. Around the
same time, a form of communication that has grown dramatically was
just beginning to come into public consciousness: the Web-log, or
such as in Japan, it functions very much like a diary. In those
cultures, it records private facts in a public way—it's a kind
of electronic <em class="citetitle">Jerry Springer</em>, available anywhere in the world.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
326960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
479696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></a><p>
But in the United States, blogs have taken on a very different
character. There are some who use the space simply to talk about
their private life. But there are many who use the space to engage in
in those elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally
professionalized and routinized. Most of us think this is democracy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
335776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7336752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7337728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7338704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7340944"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
489312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7490288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7491264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7492240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7494480"></a><p>
But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy
means rule by the people, but rule means something more than mere
elections. In our tradition, it also means control through reasoned
deliberated. Members argued about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> result; they tried to
persuade each other of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> result, and in criminal cases at
least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to
-come to an end.<a href="#ftn.idp7343936" class="footnote" name="idp7343936"><sup class="footnote">[40]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
345216"></a><p>
+come to an end.<a href="#ftn.idp7497472" class="footnote" name="idp7497472"><sup class="footnote">[40]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
498752"></a><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.<a href="#ftn.idp7346656" class="footnote" name="idp7346656"><sup class="footnote">[41]</sup></a>
+are pushing to create just such an institution.<a href="#ftn.idp7500192" class="footnote" name="idp7500192"><sup class="footnote">[41]</sup></a>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">democratic deliberation</span>»</span> to occur.
strong norm 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.<a href="#ftn.idp7350768" class="footnote" name="idp7350768"><sup class="footnote">[42]</sup></a> We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very
+isolated, and isolated discourse becomes more extreme.<a href="#ftn.idp7504304" class="footnote" name="idp7504304"><sup class="footnote">[42]</sup></a> We say what our friends want to hear, and hear very
little beyond what our friends say.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
353392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7356864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7357840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7358816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
506928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7510400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7511376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7512352"></a><p>
Enter the blog. The blog's very architecture solves one part of this
problem. People post when they want to post, and people read when they
want to read. The most difficult time is synchronous time.
the left. Some of the most popular sites are conservative or libertarian,
but there are many of all political stripes. And even blogs that are not
political cover political issues when the occasion merits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
361696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
515232"></a><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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
363072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7363824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
516608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7517360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></a><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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misspoke</span>»</span> at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising
space. The bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and
more instances of the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misspeaking</span>»</span> emerged. Finally, the story
broke back into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to
-resign as senate majority leader.<a href="#ftn.idp7369248" class="footnote" name="idp7369248"><sup class="footnote">[43]</sup></a>
+resign as senate majority leader.<a href="#ftn.idp7522784" class="footnote" name="idp7522784"><sup class="footnote">[43]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediacommercialimperativesof"></a><p>
This different cycle is possible because the same commercial pressures
don't exist with blogs as with other ventures. Television and
newspapers are commercial entities. They must work to keep attention.
If they lose readers, they lose revenue. Like sharks, they must move
on.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
372688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7373664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
526224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7527200"></a><p>
But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they
can focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a
particularly interesting story, more and more people link to that
rises in the ranks of stories. People read what is popular; what is
popular has been selected by a very democratic process of
peer-generated rankings.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
375488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
529456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle
from the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">An amateur 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.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
381184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7381936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7382944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7383696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
535152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7535904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7536912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7537664"></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.<a href="#ftn.idp7342720" class="footnote" name="idp7342720"><sup class="footnote">[44]</sup></a>
+its own employees.<a href="#ftn.idp7496256" class="footnote" name="idp7496256"><sup class="footnote">[44]</sup></a>
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
account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer a more
optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
told her that <span class="emphasis"><em>they</em></span> were writing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the story.</span>»</span>)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
387424"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
541392"></a><p>
Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the
debate—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amateur</span>»</span> not in the sense of inexperienced,
but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning 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.<a href="#ftn.idp7389392" class="footnote" name="idp7389392"><sup class="footnote">[45]</sup></a>
+retell what they had seen.<a href="#ftn.idp7543360" class="footnote" name="idp7543360"><sup class="footnote">[45]</sup></a>
And it drives readers to read across the range of accounts and
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulate,</span>»</span> as Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is
with blogs. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It's going to become an essential skill,</span>»</span> Winer predicts,
for public figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's
not clear that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalism</span>»</span> is happy about this—some journalists
-have been told to curtail their blogging.<a href="#ftn.idp7392912" class="footnote" name="idp7392912"><sup class="footnote">[46]</sup></a>
+have been told to curtail their blogging.<a href="#ftn.idp7546880" class="footnote" name="idp7546880"><sup class="footnote">[46]</sup></a>
But it is clear that we are still in transition. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A
And as the inclusion of content in this space is the least infringing use
of the Internet (meaning infringing on copyright), Winer said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we will
be the last thing that gets shut down.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
401840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
555808"></a><p>
This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">you
don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper.</span>»</span>
That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As
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="idp7
404464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7405440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7406416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7407392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7408368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7409344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7410320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
558432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7559408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7560384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7561360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7562336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7563312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7564288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> is the chief
scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work, as his Web site
describes it, is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">human learning and … the creation of
you 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.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
424608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7425584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
578256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7579232"></a><p>
Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and
Just Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well
<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. CHAPTER TEN: «Property»">10</a>)
has developed a powerful argument in favor of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right to
tinker</span>»</span> as it applies to computer science and to knowledge in
-general.<a href="#ftn.idp7429744" class="footnote" name="idp7429744"><sup class="footnote">[47]</sup></a>
+general.<a href="#ftn.idp7583392" class="footnote" name="idp7583392"><sup class="footnote">[47]</sup></a>
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>
natural 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.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
434528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
588176"></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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No way to run a culture,</span>»</span> as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in
chapter <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Chapter 9. CHAPTER NINE: Collectors">9</a>,
quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7189056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7189056" class="para"><sup class="para">[26] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7341744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7341744" class="para"><sup class="para">[26] </sup></a>
Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7112768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7112768" class="para"><sup class="para">[27] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6474816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6474816" class="para"><sup class="para">[27] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7192688"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7345376"></a>
Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York: Taplinger Publishing,
1977), 53.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7196704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7196704" class="para"><sup class="para">[28] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7349392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7349392" class="para"><sup class="para">[28] </sup></a>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7197600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7197600" class="para"><sup class="para">[29] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7350288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7350288" class="para"><sup class="para">[29] </sup></a>
Based on a chart in Jenkins, p. 178.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7191488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7191488" class="para"><sup class="para">[30] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7344176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7344176" class="para"><sup class="para">[30] </sup></a>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7208320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7208320" class="para"><sup class="para">[31] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7361008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7361008" class="para"><sup class="para">[31] </sup></a>
For illustrative cases, see, for example, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
<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 id="ftn.idp7219872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7219872" class="para"><sup class="para">[32] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7372560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7372560" class="para"><sup class="para">[32] </sup></a>
Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7221408"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7222160"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7225648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7225648" class="para"><sup class="para">[33] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7374096"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7374848"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7378336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7378336" class="para"><sup class="para">[33] </sup></a>
See Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary
Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">California Law
Review</em> 48 (1960) 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 id="ftn.idp7251920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7251920" class="para"><sup class="para">[34] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7404576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7404576" class="para"><sup class="para">[34] </sup></a>
H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
cadalyst, February 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7262272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7262272" class="para"><sup class="para">[35] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7414928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7414928" class="para"><sup class="para">[35] </sup></a>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em> (Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on Family and TV
Study,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May 1997, B6.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7256592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7256592" class="para"><sup class="para">[36] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7409248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7409248" class="para"><sup class="para">[36] </sup></a>
Interview with Elizabeth Daley and Stephanie Barish, 13 December
2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7271712"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7272464"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7274256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7274256" class="para"><sup class="para">[37] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7424368"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7425120"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7426912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7426912" class="para"><sup class="para">[37] </sup></a>
See Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>»</span> E!online, 4
November 2000, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Timeline,</span>»</span> 22 November 2000,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7282896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7282896" class="para"><sup class="para">[38] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7435552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7435552" class="para"><sup class="para">[38] </sup></a>
Interview with Daley and Barish.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7283664"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7284880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7284880" class="para"><sup class="para">[39] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7436320"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7437536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7437536" class="para"><sup class="para">[39] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7343936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7343936" class="para"><sup class="para">[40] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7497472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7497472" class="para"><sup class="para">[40] </sup></a>
See, for example, Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in America</em>,
bk. 1, trans. Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books, 2000), ch. 16.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7346656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7346656" class="para"><sup class="para">[41] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7500192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7500192" class="para"><sup class="para">[41] </sup></a>
Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of
Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7350768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7350768" class="para"><sup class="para">[42] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7504304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7504304" class="para"><sup class="para">[42] </sup></a>
Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001),
65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7369248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7369248" class="para"><sup class="para">[43] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7522784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7522784" class="para"><sup class="para">[43] </sup></a>
Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot,</span>»</span> New
York Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7342720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7342720" class="para"><sup class="para">[44] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7496256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7496256" class="para"><sup class="para">[44] </sup></a>
Telephone interview with David Winer, 16 April 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7389392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7389392" class="para"><sup class="para">[45] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7543360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7543360" class="para"><sup class="para">[45] </sup></a>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
Information Online,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 February 2003, A28; Staci
D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall,</span>»</span>
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 id="ftn.idp7392912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7392912" class="para"><sup class="para">[46] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7546880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7546880" class="para"><sup class="para">[46] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7395344"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7396096"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7396848"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7397600"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7549312"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7550064"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7550816"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7551568"></a>
See Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not all news organizations have
been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin Sites, a CNN
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.</span>»</span>)
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7429744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7429744" class="para"><sup class="para">[47] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7583392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7583392" class="para"><sup class="para">[47] </sup></a>
See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Communications
of the Association for Computer Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
439152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7439904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
592800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7593552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In the fall</strong></span> of 2002, Jesse Jordan
of Oceanside, New York, enrolled as a freshman at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, New York. His major at RPI was
content. Jesse's search engine was built to take advantage of this
technology. It used Microsoft's network file system to build an index
of all the files available within the RPI network.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
457072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
611184"></a><p>
Jesse's wasn't the first search engine built for the RPI network.
Indeed, his engine was a simple modification of engines that others
had built. His single most important improvement over those engines
modified the system a bit to fix that problem, by adding a button that
a user could click to see if the machine holding the file was still
on-line.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
459072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
613184"></a><p>
Jesse's engine went on-line in late October. Over the following six
months, he continued to tweak it to improve its functionality. By
March, the system was functioning quite well. Jesse had more than one
million files in his directory, including every type of content that might
be on users' computers.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
460752"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
614864"></a><p>
Thus the index his search engine produced included pictures, which
students could use to put on their own Web sites; copies of notes or
research; copies of information pamphlets; movie clips that students
users of the RPI network made available in a public folder of their
computer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
462784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7463536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
616896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7617648"></a><p>
But the index also included music files. In fact, one quarter of the
files that Jesse's search engine listed were music files. But that
means, of course, that three quarters were not, and—so that this
this experiment. He was a kid tinkering with technology in an
environment where tinkering with technology was precisely what he was
supposed to do.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
472240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
626352"></a><p>
On April 3, 2003, Jesse was contacted by the dean of students at
RPI. The dean informed Jesse that the Recording Industry Association
of America, the RIAA, would be filing a lawsuit against him and three
RPI community to get access to content, which Jesse had not himself
created or posted, and the vast majority of which had nothing to do
with music.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
476384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7477360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7478368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7481024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
630928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7631904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7632912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7635568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></a><p>
But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a
network and had therefore <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully</span>»</span> violated copyright laws. They
claim $150,000 per infringement. As the RIAA alleged more than one
hundred specific copyright infringements, they therefore demanded that
Jesse pay them at least $15,000,000.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
485568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7486320"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
640112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7640864"></a><p>
Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one other
student at RPI, one at Michigan Technical University, and one at
Princeton. Their situations were similar to Jesse's. Though each case
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7488976" class="footnote" name="idp7488976"><sup class="footnote">[48]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
490752"></a><p>
+2001.<a href="#ftn.idp7643520" class="footnote" name="idp7643520"><sup class="footnote">[48]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
645296"></a><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 know how much money Jesse had. Jesse had saved
$12,000 from summer jobs and other employment. They demanded
$12,000 to dismiss the case.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
492416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
646960"></a><p>
The RIAA wanted Jesse to admit to doing something wrong. He
refused. They wanted him to agree to an injunction that would
essentially make it impossible for him to work in many fields of
case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You don't want to pay another
visit to a dentist like me.</span>»</span>) And throughout, the RIAA insisted it
would not settle the case until it took every penny Jesse had saved.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
494576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
649552"></a><p>
Jesse's family was outraged at these claims. They wanted to fight.
But Jesse's uncle worked to educate the family about the nature of the
American legal system. Jesse could fight the RIAA. He might even
</p><p>
So Jesse faced a mafia-like choice: $250,000 and a chance at winning,
or $12,000 and a settlement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
496960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7497968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7498976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
651936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7652944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7653952"></a><p>
The recording industry insists this is a matter of law and morality.
Let's put the law aside for a moment and think about the morality.
Where is the 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.<a href="#ftn.idp7500688" class="footnote" name="idp7500688"><sup class="footnote">[49]</sup></a>
+artist makes $45,900.<a href="#ftn.idp7655664" class="footnote" name="idp7655664"><sup class="footnote">[49]</sup></a>
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?<a href="#ftn.idp7502256" class="footnote" name="idp7502256"><sup class="footnote">[50]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
503920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7505056"></a><p>
+student for running a search engine?<a href="#ftn.idp7657232" class="footnote" name="idp7657232"><sup class="footnote">[50]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
658896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7660032"></a><p>
On June 23, Jesse wired his savings to the lawyer working for the
RIAA. The case against him was then dismissed. And with this, this
kid who had tinkered a computer into a $15 million lawsuit became an
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.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7508960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7509936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7510912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7511888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7513024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7514000"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7488976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7488976" class="para"><sup class="para">[48] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7663936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7664912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7665888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7666864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7668000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7668976"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7643520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7643520" class="para"><sup class="para">[48] </sup></a>
Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks:
Suit Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media Group LCC</em> 6
(2003): 5, available at 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7500688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7500688" class="para"><sup class="para">[49] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7655664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7655664" class="para"><sup class="para">[49] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7502256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7502256" class="para"><sup class="para">[50] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7657232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7657232" class="para"><sup class="para">[50] </sup></a>
Douglas Lichtman makes a related point in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and Punishment,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10 September 2003, A24.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. CHAPTER FOUR: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
518416"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. CHAPTER FOUR: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirates</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
673392"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>If <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> means</strong></span>
using the creative property of others without their
permission—if <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>»</span> is
generation's pirates join this generation's country club—until
now.
</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
-The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<a href="#ftn.idp7523120" class="footnote" name="idp7523120"><sup class="footnote">[51]</sup></a>
+The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<a href="#ftn.idp7678096" class="footnote" name="idp7678096"><sup class="footnote">[51]</sup></a>
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
summer of 1909 the independent movement was in full-swing,
with producers and theater owners using illegal equipment and
imported film stock to create their own underground market.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
528416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7529056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7529808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
683392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7684032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7684784"></a><p>
With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement
by forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7531456" class="footnote" name="idp7531456"><sup class="footnote">[52]</sup></a>
+license was revoked.<a href="#ftn.idp7686432" class="footnote" name="idp7686432"><sup class="footnote">[52]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independents,</span>»</span> were companies like
Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
resisted. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
`accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
-sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7536912" class="footnote" name="idp7536912"><sup class="footnote">[53]</sup></a>
+sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7691888" class="footnote" name="idp7691888"><sup class="footnote">[53]</sup></a>
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
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Recorded Music</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings"></a><p>
The record industry was born of another kind of piracy, though to see
how requires a bit of detail about the way the law regulates music.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
545120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
700096"></a><p>
At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines
for reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player
piano), the law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of
1899 hit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>»</span> 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="idp7
547168"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
702144"></a><p>
But what if I wanted to record <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>»</span> 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
then made copies of those recordings. Because of this gap in the law,
then, I could effectively pirate someone else's song without paying
its composer anything.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
549328"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
704304"></a><p>
The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about
this capacity to pirate. As South Dakota senator Alfred Kittredge
put it,
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7551744"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7706720"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an
opera. A publisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and
copyrights it. Along come the phonographic companies and companies who
cut music rolls and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the
composer and publisher without any regard for [their]
-rights.<a href="#ftn.idp7553824" class="footnote" name="idp7553824"><sup class="footnote">[54]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
556368"></a><p>
+rights.<a href="#ftn.idp7708464" class="footnote" name="idp7708464"><sup class="footnote">[54]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
711008"></a><p>
The innovators who developed the technology to record other
people's works were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and
-genius of American composers,</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7557824" class="footnote" name="idp7557824"><sup class="footnote">[55]</sup></a>
+genius of American composers,</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7712464" class="footnote" name="idp7712464"><sup class="footnote">[55]</sup></a>
and the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>»</span>
-was thereby <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">at the complete mercy of this one pirate.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7559392" class="footnote" name="idp7559392"><sup class="footnote">[56]</sup></a>
+was thereby <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">at the complete mercy of this one pirate.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7714032" class="footnote" name="idp7714032"><sup class="footnote">[56]</sup></a>
As John Philip
Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When they make money
-out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7560736" class="footnote" name="idp7560736"><sup class="footnote">[57]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
561760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7562512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7563264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
+out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7715376" class="footnote" name="idp7715376"><sup class="footnote">[57]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
716400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7717152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7717904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too,
do the arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the
player piano argued that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the
introduction of automatic music players has not deprived any composer
of anything he had before their introduction.</span>»</span> Rather, the machines
-increased the sales of sheet music.<a href="#ftn.idp7571040" class="footnote" name="idp7571040"><sup class="footnote">[58]</sup></a> In any case, the innovators argued, the job of
+increased the sales of sheet music.<a href="#ftn.idp7725680" class="footnote" name="idp7725680"><sup class="footnote">[58]</sup></a> In any case, the innovators argued, the job of
Congress was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to consider first the interest of [the public], whom
they represent, and whose servants they are.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All talk about
`theft,'</span>»</span> the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company
wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas
musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by
-statute.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7573424" class="footnote" name="idp7573424"><sup class="footnote">[59]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
574512"></a><p>
+statute.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7728064" class="footnote" name="idp7728064"><sup class="footnote">[59]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
729152"></a><p>
The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
<span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the
law to make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
583344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7584320"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
737984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7738960"></a><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 through a kind of piracy—by giving recording artists a
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7526288" class="footnote" name="idp7526288"><sup class="footnote">[60]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
588096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7589072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7590048"></a><p>
+creativity.<a href="#ftn.idp7681264" class="footnote" name="idp7681264"><sup class="footnote">[60]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
742736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7743712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7744688"></a><p>
While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7593968" class="footnote" name="idp7593968"><sup class="footnote">[61]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
595232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7596208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7597184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7598160"></a><p>
+choice.<a href="#ftn.idp7748608" class="footnote" name="idp7748608"><sup class="footnote">[61]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
749872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7750848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7751824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7752800"></a><p>
By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their
creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto"></a><p>
Radio was also born of piracy.
</p><p>
When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public performance</span>»</span> of the composer's work.<a href="#ftn.idp7604752" class="footnote" name="idp7604752"><sup class="footnote">[62]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public performance</span>»</span> of the composer's work.<a href="#ftn.idp7759392" class="footnote" name="idp7759392"><sup class="footnote">[62]</sup></a>
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.
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="idp7612176"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7766816"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protected</span>»</span> 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="idp7
617568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7618544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
772208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7773184"></a><p>
No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law
ordinarily gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making
the choice for him or her, the law gives the radio station the right
to take something for nothing.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
620288"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Cable TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
774928"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Cable TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
</p><p>
When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
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="idp7
624688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7625808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7626560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
779328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7780448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7781200"></a><p>
Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.
Rosel Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unfair and potentially destructive competition.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7627968" class="footnote" name="idp7627968"><sup class="footnote">[63]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unfair and potentially destructive competition.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7782608" class="footnote" name="idp7782608"><sup class="footnote">[63]</sup></a>
There may have been a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public interest</span>»</span> in spreading the reach of cable
TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the National Association
of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during testimony, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does public
-interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7630688" class="footnote" name="idp7630688"><sup class="footnote">[64]</sup></a>
+interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7785328" class="footnote" name="idp7785328"><sup class="footnote">[64]</sup></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7632400" class="footnote" name="idp7632400"><sup class="footnote">[65]</sup></a>
+paid for.<a href="#ftn.idp7787040" class="footnote" name="idp7787040"><sup class="footnote">[65]</sup></a>
</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.<a href="#ftn.idp7634832" class="footnote" name="idp7634832"><sup class="footnote">[66]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
636048"></a><p>
+think there are harsher words which would fit it.<a href="#ftn.idp7789472" class="footnote" name="idp7789472"><sup class="footnote">[66]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
790688"></a><p>
These were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free-ride[rs],</span>»</span> Screen Actor's Guild president Charlton
Heston said, who were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depriving actors of
-compensation.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7637776" class="footnote" name="idp7637776"><sup class="footnote">[67]</sup></a>
+compensation.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7792416" class="footnote" name="idp7792416"><sup class="footnote">[67]</sup></a>
</p><p>
But again, there was another side to the debate. As Assistant Attorney
General Edwin Zimmerman put it,
question here is how much compensation they should have and
-how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<a href="#ftn.idp7640832" class="footnote" name="idp7640832"><sup class="footnote">[68]</sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7643024"></a>
+how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<a href="#ftn.idp7795472" class="footnote" name="idp7795472"><sup class="footnote">[68]</sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7797664"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Copyright owners took the cable companies to court. Twice the Supreme
Court held that the cable companies owed the copyright owners nothing.
exercise veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable
companies thus built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> of the value
created by broadcasters' content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
646352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7647328"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
800992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7801968"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>These separate stories</strong></span> sing a
common theme. If <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> means using value from someone
else's creative property without permission from that creator—as
-it is increasingly described today<a href="#ftn.idp7642016" class="footnote" name="idp7642016"><sup class="footnote">[69]</sup></a>
+it is increasingly described today<a href="#ftn.idp7796656" class="footnote" name="idp7796656"><sup class="footnote">[69]</sup></a>
— 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 style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7523120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7523120" class="para"><sup class="para">[51] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7678096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7678096" class="para"><sup class="para">[51] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7523760"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7678736"></a>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">adventures</span>»</span> with copyright and patent.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7531456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7531456" class="para"><sup class="para">[52] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7686432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7686432" class="para"><sup class="para">[52] </sup></a>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent Motion
Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and expanded texts
the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (September 2002), University of
Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics,
Working Paper No. 159.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7534496"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7536912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7536912" class="para"><sup class="para">[53] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7689472"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7691888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7691888" class="para"><sup class="para">[53] </sup></a>
Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents Majority</em>, archived at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7553824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7553824" class="para"><sup class="para">[54] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7708464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7708464" class="para"><sup class="para">[54] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on
S. 6330 and H.R. 19853 Before the (Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th
of South Dakota, chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the
Copyright Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7555232"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7557824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7557824" class="para"><sup class="para">[55] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7709872"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7712464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7712464" class="para"><sup class="para">[55] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223
(statement of Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7559392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7559392" class="para"><sup class="para">[56] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7714032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7714032" class="para"><sup class="para">[56] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226
(statement of Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7560736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7560736" class="para"><sup class="para">[57] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7715376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7715376" class="para"><sup class="para">[57] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23
(statement of John Philip Sousa, composer).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7571040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7571040" class="para"><sup class="para">[58] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7725680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7725680" class="para"><sup class="para">[58] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7573424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7573424" class="para"><sup class="para">[59] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7728064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7728064" class="para"><sup class="para">[59] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7526288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7526288" class="para"><sup class="para">[60] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7681264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7681264" class="para"><sup class="para">[60] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
sess., 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted
in <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 id="ftn.idp7593968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7593968" class="para"><sup class="para">[61] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7748608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7748608" class="para"><sup class="para">[61] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7604752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7604752" class="para"><sup class="para">[62] </sup></a>
+this report.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7759392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7759392" class="para"><sup class="para">[62] </sup></a>
See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At the beginning,
record companies printed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast</span>»</span> and other
Cir. 1940). See also Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 281.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7608224"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7608976"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7627968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7627968" class="para"><sup class="para">[63] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7762864"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7763616"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7782608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7782608" class="para"><sup class="para">[63] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)
(statement of Rosel H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7624832"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7630688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7630688" class="para"><sup class="para">[64] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7779472"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7785328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7785328" class="para"><sup class="para">[64] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7632400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7632400" class="para"><sup class="para">[65] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7787040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7787040" class="para"><sup class="para">[65] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7634832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7634832" class="para"><sup class="para">[66] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7789472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7789472" class="para"><sup class="para">[66] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7637776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7637776" class="para"><sup class="para">[67] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7792416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7792416" class="para"><sup class="para">[67] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (statement of Charlton Heston,
president of the Screen Actors Guild).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7638544"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7640832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7640832" class="para"><sup class="para">[68] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7793184"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7795472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7795472" class="para"><sup class="para">[68] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M.
Zimmerman, acting assistant attorney general).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7642144"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7642016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7642016" class="para"><sup class="para">[69] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7796784"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7796656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7796656" class="para"><sup class="para">[69] </sup></a>
See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The Engine
of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet—The Myth of Free
outright copying, and the law should account for that ambiguity, as it
has so often done in the past.
-</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
659008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
+</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
813648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there
are businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted
content, copy it, and sell it—all without the permission of a copyright
owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
-every year to physical piracy<a href="#ftn.idp7640960" class="footnote" name="idp7640960"><sup class="footnote">[70]</sup></a>
+every year to physical piracy<a href="#ftn.idp7795600" class="footnote" name="idp7795600"><sup class="footnote">[70]</sup></a>
(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.<a href="#ftn.idp7668736" class="footnote" name="idp7668736"><sup class="footnote">[71]</sup></a> In my view, more developing nations should take
+of intellectual property law.<a href="#ftn.idp7823376" class="footnote" name="idp7823376"><sup class="footnote">[71]</sup></a> In my view, more developing nations should take
advantage of that opportunity, but when they don't, then their laws
should be respected. And under the laws of these nations, this piracy
is wrong.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
673488"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
827296"></a><p>
Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in
any case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access
to American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have
bought those American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any
-less money than they otherwise would have had.<a href="#ftn.idp7674832" class="footnote" name="idp7674832"><sup class="footnote">[72]</sup></a>
+less money than they otherwise would have had.<a href="#ftn.idp7828640" class="footnote" name="idp7828640"><sup class="footnote">[72]</sup></a>
</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
from a computer network, there is not one less CD that can be sold.
The physics of piracy of the intangible are different from the physics of
piracy of the tangible.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
679824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
833632"></a><p>
This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a
property right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a
property right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the
a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> means.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
683536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7684288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7685296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7686048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7686800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7687552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7688560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7689312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7690320"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
837344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7838096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7839104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7839856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7840608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7841360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7842368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7843120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7844128"></a><p>
Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on Microsoft. Microsoft
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
692848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
846656"></a><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, for example, are given free access to the two largest legal
databases. The companies marketing both hope the students will become
so used to their service that they will want to use it and not the
other when they become lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
694672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7695424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7696176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7696928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
848480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7849232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7849984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7850736"></a><p>
Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the
alcoholic a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that
will make it more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we
sharing to survive.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piracy II</h2></div></div></div><p>
The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s]
-the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7706128" class="footnote" name="idp7706128"><sup class="footnote">[73]</sup></a>
+the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7859936" class="footnote" name="idp7859936"><sup class="footnote">[73]</sup></a>
This means we must determine whether
and how much p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the
law should seek to either prevent it or find an alternative to assure the
author of his profit.
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7708528"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7709280"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7862336"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7863088"></a>
<a class="indexterm" name="idxnapster"></a>
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<a href="#ftn.idp7711520" class="footnote" name="idp7711520"><sup class="footnote">[74]</sup></a>), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply
+(and, arguably, off the Internet as well<a href="#ftn.idp7865328" class="footnote" name="idp7865328"><sup class="footnote">[74]</sup></a>), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply
put together components that had been developed independently.
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7715584"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7716336"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7717344"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7869392"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7870144"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7871152"></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7718576" class="footnote" name="idp7718576"><sup class="footnote">[75]</sup></a>
+system.<a href="#ftn.idp7872384" class="footnote" name="idp7872384"><sup class="footnote">[75]</sup></a>
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
users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend—
or your 20,000 best friends.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
723184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
876992"></a><p>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7723616" class="footnote" name="idp7723616"><sup class="footnote">[76]</sup></a>
+music—28 percent of Americans older than 12.<a href="#ftn.idp7877424" class="footnote" name="idp7877424"><sup class="footnote">[76]</sup></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7727296" class="footnote" name="idp7727296"><sup class="footnote">[77]</sup></a>
+exchange content in May 2003.<a href="#ftn.idp7881104" class="footnote" name="idp7881104"><sup class="footnote">[77]</sup></a>
The vast majority of these are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a
massive quantity of content is being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The
ease and inexpensiveness of file-sharing networks have inspired
File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these
different kinds into four types.
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
732432"></a><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
886240"></a><p>
There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7739760" class="footnote" name="idp7739760"><sup class="footnote">[78]</sup></a>
+harmful.<a href="#ftn.idp7893568" class="footnote" name="idp7893568"><sup class="footnote">[78]</sup></a>
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
practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of
cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst
& Young put it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular
-technology, the labels fought it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7746240" class="footnote" name="idp7746240"><sup class="footnote">[79]</sup></a>
+technology, the labels fought it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7900048" class="footnote" name="idp7900048"><sup class="footnote">[79]</sup></a>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
750160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
903968"></a><p>
Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity
to enact regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the `crisis' … was
not the fault of the tapers—who did not [stop after MTV came into
being]—but had to a large extent resulted from stagnation in musical
-innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7676208" class="footnote" name="idp7676208"><sup class="footnote">[80]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
753728"></a><p>
+innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7830016" class="footnote" name="idp7830016"><sup class="footnote">[80]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
907536"></a><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 in particular, and society in general—or at least
</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.<a href="#ftn.idp7760064" class="footnote" name="idp7760064"><sup class="footnote">[81]</sup></a>
+percent.<a href="#ftn.idp7913872" class="footnote" name="idp7913872"><sup class="footnote">[81]</sup></a>
This confirms a trend over the past few years. The RIAA blames
Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that
could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more
than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
-price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7764592" class="footnote" name="idp7764592"><sup class="footnote">[82]</sup></a>
+price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7918400" class="footnote" name="idp7918400"><sup class="footnote">[82]</sup></a>
Competition from other forms of media could also account for some of
the decline. As Jane Black of <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
soundtrack to the film <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of
$18.98. You could get the whole movie [on DVD] for
-$19.99.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7768608" class="footnote" name="idp7768608"><sup class="footnote">[83]</sup></a>
+$19.99.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7922416" class="footnote" name="idp7922416"><sup class="footnote">[83]</sup></a>
</p><p>
percent drop. If 2.6 times the number of CDs sold were downloaded for
free, and yet sales revenue dropped by just 6.7 percent, then there is
a huge difference between <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
773024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
926832"></a><p>
These are the harms—alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's
assume, real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on
the recording industry. What value does it produce in addition to
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.<a href="#ftn.idp7774144" class="footnote" name="idp7774144"><sup class="footnote">[84]</sup></a>
+available.<a href="#ftn.idp7927952" class="footnote" name="idp7927952"><sup class="footnote">[84]</sup></a>
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
publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic
sense <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
777632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
931440"></a><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.<a href="#ftn.idp7779376" class="footnote" name="idp7779376"><sup class="footnote">[85]</sup></a>
+today.<a href="#ftn.idp7933184" class="footnote" name="idp7933184"><sup class="footnote">[85]</sup></a>
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
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="idp7
784560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7785568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
938368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7939376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson"></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
stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be
shut as well?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
791984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7792736"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
945392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7946144"></a><p>
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable
type D sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners
want to have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This
type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread, then
both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
great book!)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
795824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
949232"></a><p>
Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society
with no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem
of type A sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
unavailable?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
798752"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
952160"></a><p>
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this
chapter, much of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly
legal and good. And like the piracy I described in chapter
infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4
percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to zero.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7804496" class="footnote" name="idp7804496"><sup class="footnote">[86]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to zero.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7957568" class="footnote" name="idp7957568"><sup class="footnote">[86]</sup></a>
</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
technology. In this adjustment, the law sought to ensure the
legitimate rights of creators while protecting innovation. Sometimes
this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes less.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
808640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7809648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7816352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7817360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7818368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7819376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7820384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7821136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
961712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7962720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7969424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7970432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7971440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7972448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7973456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7974208"></a><p>
So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened the
interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
compensation, but at a level set by the law. It likewise gave cable
companies the right to the content, so long as they paid the statutory
price.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
825616"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
978688"></a><p>
This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player
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="idp7
828608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7829472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7830448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbetamax"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
981680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7982544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7983520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbetamax"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></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
and shows. Sony was therefore benefiting from the copyright
infringement of its customers. It should therefore, Disney and
Universal claimed, be partially liable for that infringement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
835680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
988752"></a><p>
There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did
decide to design its machine to make it very simple to record television
shows. It could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct
system to minimize the opportunity for copyright infringement. It did
not, and for that, Disney and Universal wanted to hold it responsible
for the architecture it chose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
840000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7
993072"></a><p>
MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal
champion. Valenti called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are
20, 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by
millions of `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of
the most precious asset the copyright owner has, his
-copyright.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7842256" class="footnote" name="idp7842256"><sup class="footnote">[87]</sup></a>
+copyright.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7995328" class="footnote" name="idp7995328"><sup class="footnote">[87]</sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and
creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation
on the after-theater marketplace caused by the hundreds of millions of
tapings that will adversely impact on the future of the creative
community in this country. It is simply a question of basic economics
-and plain common sense.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7844288" class="footnote" name="idp7844288"><sup class="footnote">[88]</sup></a>
+and plain common sense.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7997360" class="footnote" name="idp7997360"><sup class="footnote">[88]</sup></a>
Indeed, as surveys would later show, 45
-percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or more<a href="#ftn.idp7845264" class="footnote" name="idp7845264"><sup class="footnote">[89]</sup></a>
+percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or more<a href="#ftn.idp7998336" class="footnote" name="idp7998336"><sup class="footnote">[89]</sup></a>
— a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
copyright infringement without creating a mechanism to compensate
copyright owners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from the
owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby
-profit from its reproduction.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7848192" class="footnote" name="idp7848192"><sup class="footnote">[90]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7849184"></a><p>
+profit from its reproduction.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8001264" class="footnote" name="idp8001264"><sup class="footnote">[90]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8002256"></a><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 its jurisdiction—leading Judge Alex
called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse
yet, it was a <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the
American film industry)—was an illegal
-technology.<a href="#ftn.idp7851296" class="footnote" name="idp7851296"><sup class="footnote">[91]</sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7853776"></a>
+technology.<a href="#ftn.idp8004368" class="footnote" name="idp8004368"><sup class="footnote">[91]</sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8006848"></a>
</p><p>
But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.
and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the
varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably
implicated
-by such new technology.<a href="#ftn.idp7856448" class="footnote" name="idp7856448"><sup class="footnote">[92]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7858240"></a><p>
+by such new technology.<a href="#ftn.idp8009520" class="footnote" name="idp8009520"><sup class="footnote">[92]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8011312"></a><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 request. Congress was convinced that American film got
enough, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding. If we put these cases
together, a pattern is clear:
-</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">CASE</th><th align="left">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>»</span></th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Recordings</td><td align="left">Composers</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Recording artists</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cable TV</td><td align="left">Broadcasters</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VCR</td><td align="left">Film creators</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7872416"></a><p>
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">CASE</th><th align="left">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>»</span></th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF THE COURTS</th><th align="left">RESPONSE OF CONGRESS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Recordings</td><td align="left">Composers</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Recording artists</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cable TV</td><td align="left">Broadcasters</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VCR</td><td align="left">Film creators</td><td align="left">No protection</td><td align="left">Nothing</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8025488"></a><p>
In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the
-way content was distributed.<a href="#ftn.idp7873760" class="footnote" name="idp7873760"><sup class="footnote">[93]</sup></a>
+way content was distributed.<a href="#ftn.idp8026832" class="footnote" name="idp8026832"><sup class="footnote">[93]</sup></a>
In each case, throughout our history,
that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free ride</span>»</span> on someone else's
work.
technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the
interests at stake.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7881696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8034768"></a><p>
When you think across these examples, and the other examples that
make up the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes
sense. Was Walt Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators
to $15 million in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had
controlled film? Should every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get
permission to record a song?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7883440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8036512"></a><p>
We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition
has answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated,
copyright <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control
-over all possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7885232" class="footnote" name="idp7885232"><sup class="footnote">[94]</sup></a>
+over all possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8038304" class="footnote" name="idp8038304"><sup class="footnote">[94]</sup></a>
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
network. Left to develop, they could make the network vastly more
efficient. Yet these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz
writes in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the P2P
-fight.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7891072" class="footnote" name="idp7891072"><sup class="footnote">[95]</sup></a>
+fight.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8044144" class="footnote" name="idp8044144"><sup class="footnote">[95]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk
about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>,</span>»</span> the warriors
insist. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">And it should be protected just as any other property
is protected.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7640960" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7640960" class="para"><sup class="para">[70] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7795600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7795600" class="para"><sup class="para">[70] </sup></a>
See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), <em class="citetitle">The
Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>, July 2003, available
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #14</a>. See
also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial
Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7668736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7668736" class="para"><sup class="para">[71] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7823376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7823376" class="para"><sup class="para">[71] </sup></a>
See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
<em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The
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="idp7571760"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7672272"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7674832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7674832" class="para"><sup class="para">[72] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7726400"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7826080"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7828640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7828640" class="para"><sup class="para">[72] </sup></a>
For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York: Amacom, 2002),
be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the individual
engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7676640"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7706128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7706128" class="para"><sup class="para">[73] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7830448"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7859936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7859936" class="para"><sup class="para">[73] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7711520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7711520" class="para"><sup class="para">[74] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7865328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7865328" class="para"><sup class="para">[74] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7712160"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7865968"></a>
See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary
National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York:
HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies
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="idp7675952"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7718576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7718576" class="para"><sup class="para">[75] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7829760"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7872384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7872384" class="para"><sup class="para">[75] </sup></a>
See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span>
Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1;
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John Naughton,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London) <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7723616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7723616" class="para"><sup class="para">[76] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7877424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7877424" class="para"><sup class="para">[76] </sup></a>
See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music Distribution</em>
(September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of 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 id="ftn.idp7727296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7727296" class="para"><sup class="para">[77] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7881104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7881104" class="para"><sup class="para">[77] </sup></a>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7739760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7739760" class="para"><sup class="para">[78] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7893568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7893568" class="para"><sup class="para">[78] </sup></a>
See Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>, 148–49.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7714208"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7746240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7746240" class="para"><sup class="para">[79] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7868016"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7900048" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7900048" class="para"><sup class="para">[79] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7746880"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7900688"></a>
See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding
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 id="ftn.idp7676208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7676208" class="para"><sup class="para">[80] </sup></a>
+October 1989), 145–56. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp7830016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7830016" class="para"><sup class="para">[80] </sup></a>
U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7760064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7760064" class="para"><sup class="para">[81] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7913872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7913872" class="para"><sup class="para">[81] </sup></a>
See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend Statistics</em>,
available at
industry worldwide has gone from a $39 billion industry in 2000 down
to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based on U.S. dollar value of
shipments).</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7764592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7764592" class="para"><sup class="para">[82] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7918400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7918400" class="para"><sup class="para">[82] </sup></a>
Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>»</span> BusinessWeek online, 13
February 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7766368"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7768608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7768608" class="para"><sup class="para">[83] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7920176"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7922416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7922416" class="para"><sup class="para">[83] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7774144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7774144" class="para"><sup class="para">[84] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7927952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7927952" class="para"><sup class="para">[84] </sup></a>
By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels
is no longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright
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 id="ftn.idp7779376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7779376" class="para"><sup class="para">[85] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7933184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7933184" class="para"><sup class="para">[85] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7780016"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7933824"></a>
While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores
in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the
United States, an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter
Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
Results,</span>»</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7804496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7804496" class="para"><sup class="para">[86] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7957568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7957568" class="para"><sup class="para">[86] </sup></a>
See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34-
35 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183
account 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 id="ftn.idp7842256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7842256" class="para"><sup class="para">[87] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7995328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7995328" class="para"><sup class="para">[87] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7844288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7844288" class="para"><sup class="para">[88] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7997360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7997360" class="para"><sup class="para">[88] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7845264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7845264" class="para"><sup class="para">[89] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7998336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7998336" class="para"><sup class="para">[89] </sup></a>
<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 id="ftn.idp7848192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7848192" class="para"><sup class="para">[90] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8001264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8001264" class="para"><sup class="para">[90] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony
of Jack Valenti).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7851296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7851296" class="para"><sup class="para">[91] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8004368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8004368" class="para"><sup class="para">[91] </sup></a>
<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 id="ftn.idp7856448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7856448" class="para"><sup class="para">[92] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8009520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8009520" class="para"><sup class="para">[92] </sup></a>
<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 id="ftn.idp7873760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7873760" class="para"><sup class="para">[93] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8026832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8026832" class="para"><sup class="para">[93] </sup></a>
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,
eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7806496"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7877472"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7885232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7885232" class="para"><sup class="para">[94] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7959568"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8030544"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8038304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8038304" class="para"><sup class="para">[94] </sup></a>
<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 id="ftn.idp7891072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7891072" class="para"><sup class="para">[95] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8044144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8044144" class="para"><sup class="para">[95] </sup></a>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 September 2003, C3.
table in the backyard—by, for example, going to Sears, buying a
table, and putting it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking
then?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7902848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8055920"></a><p>
The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus
ideas, though that's an important difference. The point instead is that
woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true
when I copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">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.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7905120" class="footnote" name="idp7905120"><sup class="footnote">[96]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7906576"></a><p>
+lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8058192" class="footnote" name="idp8058192"><sup class="footnote">[96]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8059648"></a><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 here. Here the law says you can't take my idea or
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
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in its proper context.<a href="#ftn.idp7909120" class="footnote" name="idp7909120"><sup class="footnote">[97]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in its proper context.<a href="#ftn.idp8062192" class="footnote" name="idp8062192"><sup class="footnote">[97]</sup></a>
</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
statement—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright material is property</span>»</span>— will be a bit
more clear, and its implications will be revealed as quite different
from the implications that the copyright warriors would have us draw.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7905120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7905120" class="para"><sup class="para">[96] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8058192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8058192" class="para"><sup class="para">[96] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7909120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7909120" class="para"><sup class="para">[97] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8062192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8062192" class="para"><sup class="para">[97] </sup></a>
As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
intangible. A property right is simply a right that an individual has
the object to which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See
Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. CHAPTER SIX: Founders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7921504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7922256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7923008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. CHAPTER SIX: Founders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8074576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8075328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8076080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> wrote
<em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> in 1595. The play was first
published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play that Shakespeare had
once overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of
Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of
clichés.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7927344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8080416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
In 1774, almost 180 years after <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> was written, the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy-right</span>»</span> for the work was still thought by many to be the exclusive
-right of a single London publisher, Jacob Tonson.<a href="#ftn.idp7930480" class="footnote" name="idp7930480"><sup class="footnote">[98]</sup></a>
+right of a single London publisher, Jacob Tonson.<a href="#ftn.idp8083552" class="footnote" name="idp8083552"><sup class="footnote">[98]</sup></a>
Tonson was the most prominent of a small group of publishers called
-the Conger<a href="#ftn.idp7934784" class="footnote" name="idp7934784"><sup class="footnote">[99]</sup></a>
+the Conger<a href="#ftn.idp8087856" class="footnote" name="idp8087856"><sup class="footnote">[99]</sup></a>
who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth
century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span> of
books that they had acquired from authors. That perpetual right meant
one else could publish copies of a book to which they held the
copyright. Prices of the classics were thus kept high; competition to
produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7937232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7939472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7940480"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8090304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8092544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8093552"></a><p>
Now, there's something puzzling about the year 1774 to anyone who
knows a little about copyright law. The better-known year in the
history of copyright is 1710, the year that the British Parliament
act stated that all published works would get a copyright term of
fourteen years, renewable once if the author was alive, and that all
works already published by 1710 would get a single term of twenty-one
-additional years.<a href="#ftn.idp7942384" class="footnote" name="idp7942384"><sup class="footnote">[100]</sup></a> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> should have been
+additional years.<a href="#ftn.idp8095456" class="footnote" name="idp8095456"><sup class="footnote">[100]</sup></a> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> should have been
free in 1731. So why was there any issue about it still being under
Tonson's control in 1774?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7945392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7946368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7948832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7949584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8098464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8099440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8101904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8102656"></a><p>
The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>
was—indeed, no one had. At the time the English passed the
Statute of Anne, there was no other legislation governing copyrights.
published. But after it expired, there was no positive law that said
that the publishers, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stationers,</span>»</span> had an exclusive right to print
books.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7952016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7952992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8105088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8106064"></a><p>
There was no <span class="emphasis"><em>positive</em></span> law, but that didn't mean
that there was no law. The Anglo-American legal tradition looks to
both the words of legislatures and the words of judges to know the
background only if it passes a law to displace it. And so the real
question after the licensing statutes had expired was whether the
common law protected a copyright, independent of any positive law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7955888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7956864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7958848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8108960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8109936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8111920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
This question was important to the publishers, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">booksellers,</span>»</span> as
they were called, because there was growing competition from foreign
publishers. The Scottish, in particular, were increasingly publishing
copyright <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">expired,</span>»</span> and the work would then be free and could be
published by anyone. Or so the legislature is thought to have
believed.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7965280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8118352"></a><p>
Now, the thing to puzzle about for a moment is this: Why would
Parliament limit the exclusive right? Not why would they limit it to
the particular limit they set, but why would they limit the right
<span class="emphasis"><em>at all?</em></span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7967232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7968208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7968960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8120304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8121280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8122032"></a><p>
For the booksellers, and the authors whom they represented, had a very
strong claim. Take <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> as an example: That play
was written by Shakespeare. It was his genius that brought it into the
why is it that the law would ever allow someone else to come along and
take Shakespeare's play without his, or his estate's, permission? What
reason is there to allow someone else to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Shakespeare's work?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7971472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8125040"></a><p>
The answer comes in two parts. We first need to see something special
about the notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> that existed at the time of the
Statute of Anne. Second, we have to see something important about
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">booksellers.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7973600"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8127168"></a><p>
First, about copyright. In the last three hundred years, we have come
to apply the concept of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> ever more broadly. But in 1710, it
wasn't so much a concept as it was a very particular right. The
large collection of restrictions on the freedom of others: It grants
the author the exclusive right to copy, the exclusive right to
distribute, the exclusive right to perform, and so on.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7977152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7977904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8130720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8131472"></a><p>
So, for example, even if the copyright to Shakespeare's works were
perpetual, all that would have meant under the original meaning of the
term was that no one could reprint Shakespeare's work without the
the work could be translated, or whether Kenneth Branagh would be
allowed to make his films. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy-right</span>»</span> was only an exclusive
right to print—no less, of course, but also no more.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7979968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7981952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8133536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8135520"></a><p>
Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British.
They had had a long and ugly experience with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive rights,</span>»</span>
especially <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive rights</span>»</span> granted by the Crown. The English had
have it forever.</span>»</span>) The state would protect the exclusive right, but
only so long as it benefited society. The British saw the harms from
specialinterest favors; they passed a law to stop them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7986400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7988384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8139968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8141952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></a><p>
Second, about booksellers. It wasn't just that the copyright was a
monopoly. It was also that it was a monopoly held by the booksellers.
Booksellers sound quaint and harmless to us. They were not viewed
these monopolists were harsh: Milton described them as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">old patentees
and monopolizers in the trade of book-selling</span>»</span>; they were <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">men who do
not therefore labour in an honest profession to which learning is
-indetted.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7992496" class="footnote" name="idp7992496"><sup class="footnote">[101]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7993776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7994528"></a><p>
+indetted.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8146064" class="footnote" name="idp8146064"><sup class="footnote">[101]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8147344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8148096"></a><p>
Many believed the power the booksellers exercised over the spread of
knowledge was harming that spread, just at the time the Enlightenment
was teaching the importance of education and knowledge spread
Eye of the Law; it will be a great Cramp to Trade, a Discouragement to
Learning, no Benefit to the Authors, but a general Tax on the Publick;
and all this only to increase the private Gain of the
-Booksellers.<a href="#ftn.idp8003584" class="footnote" name="idp8003584"><sup class="footnote">[102]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
005808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8006784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8007760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8008512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8009520"></a><p>
+Booksellers.<a href="#ftn.idp8157152" class="footnote" name="idp8157152"><sup class="footnote">[102]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
159376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8160352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8161328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8162080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8163088"></a><p>
Having failed in Parliament, the publishers turned to the courts in a
series of cases. Their argument was simple and direct: The Statute of
Anne gave authors certain protections through positive law, but those
they had the right to ban the publication of a book, even if its
Statute of Anne copyright had expired. This, they argued, was the only
way to protect authors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
011904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
165472"></a><p>
This was a clever argument, and one that had the support of some of
the leading jurists of the day. It also displayed extraordinary
chutzpah. Until then, as law professor Raymond Patterson has put it,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The publishers … had as much concern for authors as a cattle
-rancher has for cattle.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7751968" class="footnote" name="idp7751968"><sup class="footnote">[103]</sup></a>
+rancher has for cattle.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7905776" class="footnote" name="idp7905776"><sup class="footnote">[103]</sup></a>
The bookseller didn't care squat for the rights of the author. His
concern was the monopoly profit that the author's work gave.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
018352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
171920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
The booksellers' argument was not accepted without a fight.
The hero of this fight was a Scottish bookseller named Alexander
-Donaldson.<a href="#ftn.idp8020752" class="footnote" name="idp8020752"><sup class="footnote">[104]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
024496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8025248"></a><p>
+Donaldson.<a href="#ftn.idp8174320" class="footnote" name="idp8174320"><sup class="footnote">[104]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
178064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8178816"></a><p>
Donaldson was an outsider to the London Conger. He began his
career in Edinburgh in 1750. The focus of his business was inexpensive
reprints <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">of standard works whose copyright term had expired,</span>»</span> at least
-under the Statute of Anne.<a href="#ftn.idp8026800" class="footnote" name="idp8026800"><sup class="footnote">[105]</sup></a>
+under the Statute of Anne.<a href="#ftn.idp8180368" class="footnote" name="idp8180368"><sup class="footnote">[105]</sup></a>
Donaldson's publishing house prospered
and became <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something of a center for literary Scotsmen.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">[A]mong
them,</span>»</span> Professor Mark Rose writes, was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the young James Boswell
who, together with his friend Andrew Erskine, published an anthology
-of contemporary Scottish poems with Donaldson.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8030144" class="footnote" name="idp8030144"><sup class="footnote">[106]</sup></a>
+of contemporary Scottish poems with Donaldson.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8183712" class="footnote" name="idp8183712"><sup class="footnote">[106]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw"></a><p>
When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in
Scotland, he responded by moving his shop to London, where he sold
inexpensive editions <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">of the most popular English books, in defiance
of the supposed common law right of Literary
-Property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8033072" class="footnote" name="idp8033072"><sup class="footnote">[107]</sup></a>
+Property.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8186640" class="footnote" name="idp8186640"><sup class="footnote">[107]</sup></a>
His books undercut the Conger prices by 30 to 50 percent, and he
rested his right to compete upon the ground that, under the Statute of
Anne, the works he was selling had passed out of protection.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
035312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
188880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> like
Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates,</span>»</span>
the most important early victory being <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
039520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8040496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8044192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8044944"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
193088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8194064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8197760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8198512"></a><p>
Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James
Thomson's poem <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons.</span>»</span> Millar complied with the requirements of
the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full protection of the
statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor began
printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
-law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<a href="#ftn.idp8046736" class="footnote" name="idp8046736"><sup class="footnote">[108]</sup></a>
+law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<a href="#ftn.idp8200304" class="footnote" name="idp8200304"><sup class="footnote">[108]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord2"></a><p>
Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever
reprinting Thomson's poem without Millar's permission. That common law
rule thus effectively gave the booksellers a perpetual right to
control the publication of any book assigned to them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
051120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8052096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8053072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
204688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8205664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8206640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
Considered as a matter of abstract justice—reasoning as if
justice were just a matter of logical deduction from first
principles—Mansfield's conclusion might make some sense. But
a reasonable period of time. Within twenty-one years, Parliament
believed, Britain would mature from the controlled culture that the
Crown coveted to the free culture that we inherited.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
056640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
210208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></a><p>
The fight to defend the limits of the Statute of Anne was not to end
there, however, and it is here that Donaldson enters the mix.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
060608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8061360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
214176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8214928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></a><p>
Millar died soon after his victory, so his case was not appealed. His
estate sold Thomson's poems to a syndicate of printers that included
-Thomas Beckett.<a href="#ftn.idp8065264" class="footnote" name="idp8065264"><sup class="footnote">[109]</sup></a>
+Thomas Beckett.<a href="#ftn.idp8218832" class="footnote" name="idp8218832"><sup class="footnote">[109]</sup></a>
Donaldson then released an unauthorized edition
of Thomson's works. Beckett, on the strength of the decision in <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>,
got an injunction against Donaldson. Donaldson appealed the case to
the House of Lords, which functioned much like our own Supreme
Court. In February of 1774, that body had the chance to interpret the
meaning of Parliament's limits from sixty years before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
066944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8067920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
220512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8221488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
As few legal cases ever do, <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> drew an
enormous amount of attention throughout Britain. Donaldson's lawyers
argued that whatever rights may have existed under the common law, the
publication came from that statute. Thus, they argued, after the term
specified in the Statute of Anne expired, works that had been
protected by the statute were no longer protected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
072992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
226560"></a><p>
The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were
presented to the House and voted upon first by the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law lords,</span>»</span>
members of special legal distinction who functioned much like the
Justices in our Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the
House of Lords generally voted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
075040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
228608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
The reports about the law lords' votes are mixed. On some counts,
it looks as if perpetual copyright prevailed. But there is no ambiguity
Whatever one's understanding of the common law, now a copyright was
fixed for a limited time, after which the work protected by copyright
passed into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
080112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8080864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8081616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8082368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8083264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
233680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8234432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8235184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8235936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8236688"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The public domain.</span>»</span> Before the case of <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em>
v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em>, there was no clear idea of a public domain in
England. Before 1774, there was a strong argument that common law
over creative works expired, and the greatest works in English
history—including those of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson,
and Bunyan—were free of legal restraint.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
085312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8086944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8087920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8088896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8089872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8090848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
238848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8240480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8241456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8242432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8243408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8244384"></a><p>
It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords
fueled an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland,
where most of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirate publishers</span>»</span> did their work, people
public, and none has been tried before the House of Lords in the
decision of which so many individuals were interested.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great
rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over literary property: bonfires
-and illuminations.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8093744" class="footnote" name="idp8093744"><sup class="footnote">[110]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
094640"></a><p>
+and illuminations.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8247280" class="footnote" name="idp8247280"><sup class="footnote">[110]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
248176"></a><p>
In London, however, at least among publishers, the reaction was
equally strong in the opposite direction. The <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em>
reported:
Copy-right, are in a manner ruined, and those who after many years
industry thought they had acquired a competency to provide for their
families now find themselves without a shilling to devise to their
-successors.<a href="#ftn.idp8013616" class="footnote" name="idp8013616"><sup class="footnote">[111]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
098544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8099296"></a><p>
+successors.<a href="#ftn.idp8167184" class="footnote" name="idp8167184"><sup class="footnote">[111]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
252080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8252832"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruined</span>»</span> is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to
say that the change was profound. The decision of the House of Lords
context</em></span>, not a context in which the choices about what
culture is available to people and how they get access to it are made
by the few despite the wishes of the many.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
103776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8104752"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
257312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8258288"></a><p>
At least, this was the rule in a world where the Parliament is
antimonopoly, resistant to the protectionist pleas of publishers. In a
world where the Parliament is more pliant, free culture would be less
protected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8106128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8107104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8108080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8109056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8110032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8111008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8111984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8112960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8113936"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7930480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7930480" class="para"><sup class="para">[98] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8259664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8260640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8261616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8262592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8263568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8264544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8265520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8266496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8267472"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8083552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8083552" class="para"><sup class="para">[98] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7931120"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7931872"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8084192"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8084944"></a>
Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent
eighteenth-century literary figures, especially John Dryden, and for his
handsome <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">definitive editions</span>»</span> of classic works. In addition to <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
heart of the English canon, including collected works of Shakespeare, Ben
Jonson, John Milton, and John Dryden. See Keith Walker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
Bookseller,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424–31.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7934784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7934784" class="para"><sup class="para">[99] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8087856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8087856" class="para"><sup class="para">[99] </sup></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em> (Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), 151–52.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7942384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7942384" class="para"><sup class="para">[100] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8095456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8095456" class="para"><sup class="para">[100] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7943024"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8096096"></a>
As Siva Vaidhyanathan nicely argues, it is erroneous to call this a
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright law.</span>»</span> See Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 40.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7992496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7992496" class="para"><sup class="para">[101] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8146064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8146064" class="para"><sup class="para">[101] </sup></a>
Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8003584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8003584" class="para"><sup class="para">[102] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8157152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8157152" class="para"><sup class="para">[102] </sup></a>
A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending
in the House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the
the Authors or Purchasers of such 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 id="ftn.idp7751968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7751968" class="para"><sup class="para">[103] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7905776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7905776" class="para"><sup class="para">[103] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8014352"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8015104"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8167920"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8168672"></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt
Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For a wonderfully compelling account, see
Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8020752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8020752" class="para"><sup class="para">[104] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8174320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8174320" class="para"><sup class="para">[104] </sup></a>
For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and Copyright</em>
(London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8026800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8026800" class="para"><sup class="para">[105] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8180368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8180368" class="para"><sup class="para">[105] </sup></a>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1993), 92.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8027824"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8030144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8030144" class="para"><sup class="para">[106] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8181392"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8183712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8183712" class="para"><sup class="para">[106] </sup></a>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8033072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8033072" class="para"><sup class="para">[107] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8186640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8186640" class="para"><sup class="para">[107] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8033712"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8187280"></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting
Borwell).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8046736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8046736" class="para"><sup class="para">[108] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8200304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8200304" class="para"><sup class="para">[108] </sup></a>
Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law Review</em> 29
(1983): 1152.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8065264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8065264" class="para"><sup class="para">[109] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8218832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8218832" class="para"><sup class="para">[109] </sup></a>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8093744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8093744" class="para"><sup class="para">[110] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8247280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8247280" class="para"><sup class="para">[110] </sup></a>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8013616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8013616" class="para"><sup class="para">[111] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8167184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8167184" class="para"><sup class="para">[111] </sup></a>
Ibid.
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Chapter 7. CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdocumentaryfilm"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxelsejon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuseindocumentaryfilm"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsfairuseofcopyrightedmaterialin"></a><p>
Else worked on a documentary that I was involved in. At a break,
he told me a story about the freedom to create with film in America
today.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
126448"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
279984"></a><p>
In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner's Ring
Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera.
Stagehands are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera.
it, this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special
about the scene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
130560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8131536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
284096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8285072"></a><p>
Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>.
For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and of course, to use
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
139856"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
293072"></a><p>
Then, as Else told me, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two things happened. First we discovered
… that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at
least that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation.</span>»</span>
And second, Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us
to use this four-point-five seconds of … entirely unsolicited
<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which was in the corner of the shot.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
142800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8143664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxherrerarebecca"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
296016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8296880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxherrerarebecca"></a><p>
Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone
he thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera. He
explained to her, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There must be some mistake here. … We're
asking for your educational rate on this.</span>»</span> That was the educational
rate, Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to
confirm what he had been told.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
147056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
300272"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,</span>»</span> he told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Yes, you
have your facts straight,</span>»</span> she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
clip of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> in the corner of a shot in a documentary film
if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys.</span>»</span> As an assistant
to Herrera told Else later on, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">They don't give a shit. They just want
the money.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
150528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8151504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8152256"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
303744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8304720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8305472"></a><p>
Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was playing
on the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera. To reproduce
this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the
by the law.
</p><p>
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first
-thought is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8161280" class="footnote" name="idp8161280"><sup class="footnote">[112]</sup></a>
+thought is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8314528" class="footnote" name="idp8314528"><sup class="footnote">[112]</sup></a>
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
164608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8165584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
318416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8319696"></a><p>
So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> Here's his reply:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst"></a><p>
broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">clearly
fair use</span>»</span> in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't rely on the
concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
172096"></a><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
327312"></a><p>
Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy
Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> listing the source and licensing status of each
shot in the film. They take a dim view of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> and a claim of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> can grind the application process to a halt.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
176384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8177136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8177888"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
332096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8332912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8333728"></a><p>
I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the first
place. But I knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a history of
would boil down to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper
pockets, me or them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
182992"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
339280"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
The question of fair use usually comes up at the end of the
project, when we are up against a release deadline and out of
money.
-</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
185264"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
341952"></a><p>
In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory therefore
supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture. But
in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of
publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has
matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or
not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8187728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8188704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8189680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8190656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8191632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8192608"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8161280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8161280" class="para"><sup class="para">[112] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8344656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8345984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8347184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8348496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8349888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8351168"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8314528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8314528" class="para"><sup class="para">[112] </sup></a>
For an excellent argument that such use is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> but that
lawyers don't permit recognition that it is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use,</span>»</span> see Richard
A. Posner with William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em></span>»</span> (draft on file with author), University of Chicago
Law School, 5 August 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
195392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8197744"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
354336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8356688"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In 1993</strong></span>, Alex Alben was a lawyer
working at Starwave, Inc. Starwave was an innovative company founded
by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop digital
Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything
else that we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go
-for it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8209760" class="footnote" name="idp8209760"><sup class="footnote">[113]</sup></a>
+for it.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8368816" class="footnote" name="idp8368816"><sup class="footnote">[113]</sup></a>
</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
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="idp8
217472"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
376528"></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,
And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood
loved it, and it sold very well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
225536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
384592"></a><p>
But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to
take a year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done
this efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done
-at all.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8227136" class="footnote" name="idp8227136"><sup class="footnote">[114]</sup></a>
+at all.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8386192" class="footnote" name="idp8386192"><sup class="footnote">[114]</sup></a>
Did it make sense, I asked Alben, that this is the way a new work
has to be made?
</p><p>
that the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a
year, how long would it take someone else? And how much creativity is
never made just because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
236304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8237408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
395360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8396528"></a><p>
These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a
Republican hat for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government
defines the scope of these rights, and the scope defined determines
change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a well-trained,
regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and ask,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
240160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
399888"></a><p>
I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only
a few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I
twentieth century, all framed around the idea of a <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode.
The execution was perfect, down to the sixty-minute stopwatch. The
judges loved every minute of it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
243632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
403360"></a><p>
When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David
Nimmer, perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the
nation. He had an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the
began his talk with a question: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you know how many federal laws
were just violated in this room?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8245872"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8246688"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8247504"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8248608"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8249440"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8405600"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8406416"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8407232"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8408336"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8409168"></a>
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
and paste architecture of the Internet created—in a second you can
find just about any image you want; in another second, you can have it
planted in your presentation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
251936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
411664"></a><p>
But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and
its archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound
so you don't have to rely upon fair use rights. Either way, the creative
process is a process of paying lawyers—again a privilege, or perhaps a
curse, reserved for the few.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8209760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8209760" class="para"><sup class="para">[113] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8368816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8368816" class="para"><sup class="para">[113] </sup></a>
Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
publicity—rights an artist has to control the commercial
exploitation of his image. But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
Burn</span>»</span> creativity, as this chapter evinces.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8211360"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8212480"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8227136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8227136" class="para"><sup class="para">[114] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8370416"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8371536"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8386192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8386192" class="para"><sup class="para">[114] </sup></a>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management, <em class="citetitle">Seven
Steps to Performance-Based Services Acquisition</em>, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
270624"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
430400"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In April 1996</strong></span>, millions of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>—computer codes designed to
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
finished the whole of the Internet, they started again. Over and over
again, once every two months, these bits of code took copies of the
Internet and stored them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
273936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
433712"></a><p>
By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of
copies. And at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the
archive that these copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to
the same as the content you read before. The page may seem the same,
but the content could easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's
library—constantly updated, without any reliable memory.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
279648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8281392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
439440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8441248"></a><p>
Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and
the Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet
was. You have the power to see what you remember. More importantly,
perhaps, you also have the power to find what you don't remember and
-what others might prefer you forget.<a href="#ftn.idp8282784" class="footnote" name="idp8282784"><sup class="footnote">[115]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
286528"></a><p>
+what others might prefer you forget.<a href="#ftn.idp8442640" class="footnote" name="idp8442640"><sup class="footnote">[115]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
446384"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can
go back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If
you wanted to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the
Internet Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew
Carnegie of the Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10
billion pages, and it was growing at about a billion pages a month.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
292512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8293264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8294048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8294864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8295680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
452368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8453120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8453904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8454720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8455536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in
human history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty
terabytes of material</span>»</span>—and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the
[television] is almost unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were
Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are
just a graduate student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
301696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8302512"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
461440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8462256"></a><p>
Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown?
Remember that back and forth surreal experience of a politician
interacting with a fictional television character? If you were a
<em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out after it … it would be almost
impossible. … Those materials are almost unfindable. …
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
305088"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
464832"></a><p>
Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded
in newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is
recorded on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world
of knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around
once the copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the
work.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
307712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8308528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
467808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8468624"></a><p>
These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library
of Congress made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so
long as such deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to
1915 alone, there were more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed
back.</span>»</span> Thus, when the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy
held by any library. The copy exists—if it exists at
-all—in the library archive of the film company.<a href="#ftn.idp8310752" class="footnote" name="idp8310752"><sup class="footnote">[116]</sup></a>
+all—in the library archive of the film company.<a href="#ftn.idp8470848" class="footnote" name="idp8470848"><sup class="footnote">[116]</sup></a>
</p><p>
The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts
were originally not copyrighted—there was no way to capture the
broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't
demand them. The content of this part of American culture is
practically invisible to anyone who would look.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
315248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
475344"></a><p>
Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and
his allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty
their coverage during the week of September 11 available free on-line.
Anyone could see how news reports from around the world covered the
events of that day.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
317216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8318000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8319104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8320304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8321408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8322224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8323040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8323856"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
477312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8478096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8479200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8480400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8481504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8482320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8483136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8483952"></a><p>
Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span> (meaning
films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never copyrighted),
build an archive of knowledge about our history. In this second life,
the content can continue to inform even if that information is no
longer sold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
330928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
491024"></a><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<a href="#ftn.idp8332400" class="footnote" name="idp8332400"><sup class="footnote">[117]</sup></a>). After
+very quickly (the average today is after about a year<a href="#ftn.idp8492496" class="footnote" name="idp8492496"><sup class="footnote">[117]</sup></a>). 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
before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but
we are for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As
Kahle describes,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
341616"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
501712"></a><p>
It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of
movies, … and about one to two million movies [distributed] during
… thrilling. It could be one of the things humankind would be most
proud of. Up there with the Library of Alexandria, putting a man on
the moon, and the invention of the printing press.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
344016"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
504112"></a><p>
Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the
the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is collected in these digital spaces is also
someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> And the law of property restricts the freedoms
that Kahle and others would exercise.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8349536"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8282784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8282784" class="para"><sup class="para">[115] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8509584"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8442640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8442640" class="para"><sup class="para">[115] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8283520"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8284304"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8443376"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8444160"></a>
The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White
House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> That was
later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq
Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8310752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8310752" class="para"><sup class="para">[116] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8470848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8470848" class="para"><sup class="para">[116] </sup></a>
Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2–3
(1980): 5; Anthony Slide, <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film
Preservation in the United States</em> (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &
Co., 1992), 36.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8332400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8332400" class="para"><sup class="para">[117] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8492496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8492496" class="para"><sup class="para">[117] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8333136"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8493232"></a>
Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>,
5 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927
and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. CHAPTER TEN: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
352928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8353744"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. CHAPTER TEN: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Property</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
513024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8513840"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> has been the president
of the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came
to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
355504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8356928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8357760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8358544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8359360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8360176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8360992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
515600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8517024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8517856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8518688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8519504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8520320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8521136"></a><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 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.
owners must be 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.<a href="#ftn.idp8367392" class="footnote" name="idp8367392"><sup class="footnote">[118]</sup></a>
+hearing and the debates to follow must rest.<a href="#ftn.idp8527536" class="footnote" name="idp8527536"><sup class="footnote">[118]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
redefined that tradition, at least in Washington.
</p><p>
While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in a nerdy and
-precise sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<a href="#ftn.idp8374768" class="footnote" name="idp8374768"><sup class="footnote">[119]</sup></a> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that
+precise sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<a href="#ftn.idp8534912" class="footnote" name="idp8534912"><sup class="footnote">[119]</sup></a> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and
protection resident in all other property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative
property owners were given the same rights as all other property
creative property be given the same rights as all other property? Why
did they require that for creative property there must be a public
domain?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
396112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
556192"></a><p>
To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the
history of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
enabled. Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks
how four different modalities of regulation interact to support or
weaken the right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
411904"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the right or regulation."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
571920"></a><p>
At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or
group that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In
each case throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as
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="idp8414240"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
415120"></a><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8574256"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
575136"></a><p>
Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an
individual for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is
imposed by a community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be
sold. But given a set of norms, and a background of property and
contract law, the market imposes a simultaneous constraint upon how an
individual or group might behave.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
418720"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
578672"></a><p>
Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>—the physical world as one finds it—is a
constraint on behavior. A fallen bridge might constrain your ability
blocks your way, it is the law of gravity that enforces this
constraint. If a $500 airplane ticket stands between you and a flight
to New York, it is the market that enforces this constraint.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
422352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8423744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8425072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
582304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8583696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8585024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is
be; my claim is not about comprehensiveness), these four are among the
most significant, and any regulator (whether controlling or freeing)
must consider how these four in particular interact.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
429920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8430736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8431552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
589888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8590704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8591520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></a><p>
So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a high
speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular
</p><p>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp8437520" class="footnote" name="idp8437520"><sup class="footnote">[120]</sup></a>
+special role in affecting the three.<a href="#ftn.idp8597504" class="footnote" name="idp8597504"><sup class="footnote">[120]</sup></a>
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
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="idp8
441216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8442544"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1361.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8446464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
601200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8602464"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1361.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8606256"></a><p>
These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To
understand the effective protection of liberty or protection of
property at any particular moment, we must track these changes over
time. A restriction imposed by one modality might be erased by
another. A freedom enabled by one modality might be displaced by
-another.<a href="#ftn.idp8447920" class="footnote" name="idp8447920"><sup class="footnote">[121]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
456720"></a><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Why Hollywood Is Right</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><p>
+another.<a href="#ftn.idp8607712" class="footnote" name="idp8607712"><sup class="footnote">[121]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
616512"></a><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Why Hollywood Is Right</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><p>
The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just
how, Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress
and the courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that
</p><p>
Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the
Internet:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
466400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
626144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on
uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but the norms
of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
this form of infringement.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
472256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8473392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8474208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
632176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8633312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8634128"></a><p>
Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and
p2p sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically,
as does the constraint of the market. And as both the market and
architecture relax the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The
happy balance (for the warriors, at least) of life before the Internet
becomes an effective state of anarchy after the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
475824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8477136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8478464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
635744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8637056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8638384"></a><p>
Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this
change, when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance
after the fall of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the
looting that results.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1381.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
483248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1381.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
643040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995,
innovative marketing techniques, (3) technologists should push to
develop code to protect copyrighted material, and (4) educators should
educate kids to better protect copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
487440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8488752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8490080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8490896"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
647280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8648656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8649984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8650800"></a><p>
This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed—if it was to
preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced
by the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content
to bail them out when a virus (architecture) devastates their
crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to the government to bail
them out when imports (market) wipe out the U.S. steel industry.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
493264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8494512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8495840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
653232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8654480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8655808"></a><p>
Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's
campaign to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a
technological innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that
the changing technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect
on the content industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely
Brown describes it, its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
497856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8498672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8499776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8500592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8501408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8502224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8503040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8503856"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
657824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8658640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8659744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8660560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8661376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8662192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8663008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8663824"></a><p>
But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because
technology has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't
follow that the government should intervene to support that old way of
doing business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20
percent of their traditional film market to the emerging technologies
-of digital cameras.<a href="#ftn.idp8505376" class="footnote" name="idp8505376"><sup class="footnote">[122]</sup></a>
+of digital cameras.<a href="#ftn.idp8665344" class="footnote" name="idp8665344"><sup class="footnote">[122]</sup></a>
Does anyone believe the government should ban digital cameras just to
support Kodak? Highways have weakened the freight business for
market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to
reinforce commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function
only once a second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
511968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8512784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8513600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8514704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8515520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8516336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
671984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8672800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8673616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8674720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8675536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8676352"></a><p>
The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.
In a free society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and
free trade, the government's role is not to support one way of doing
them against loss. If the government did this generally, then we would
never have any progress. As Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in
1991, in a memo criticizing software patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies
-have an interest in excluding future competitors.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8518528" class="footnote" name="idp8518528"><sup class="footnote">[123]</sup></a>
+have an interest in excluding future competitors.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8678544" class="footnote" name="idp8678544"><sup class="footnote">[123]</sup></a>
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
changes they create, in response to the request of those hurt by
changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and
opportunities for innovation and change.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
521648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8522720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8523536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
681296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8682368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8683184"></a><p>
In the context of laws regulating speech—which include,
obviously, copyright law—that duty is even stronger. When the
industry complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to
Congress is being asked to pass laws that would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom
of speech, it should ask— carefully—whether such
regulation is justified.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
526784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8528080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
686432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8687728"></a><p>
My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether
the changes that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
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="idp8
539472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8540288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
699088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8699904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></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
problems DDT caused were worse than the problems it solved, at least
when considering the other, more environmentally friendly ways to
solve the problems that DDT was meant to solve.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
544800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8546112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
704352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8705664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James
Boyle appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
-culture.<a href="#ftn.idp8549776" class="footnote" name="idp8549776"><sup class="footnote">[124]</sup></a>
+culture.<a href="#ftn.idp8709328" class="footnote" name="idp8709328"><sup class="footnote">[124]</sup></a>
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
protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack on
authors. It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we
should be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
553136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
712688"></a><p>
My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly
this effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic
effect on the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But
not be only that copyrighted work is effectively protected. Also, and
generally missed, the net effect of this massive increase in protection
will be devastating to the environment for creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
555376"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
714992"></a><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="idp8
557344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8558656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8560096"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Beginnings</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8562560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8567424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8568496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8573040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
716960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8718208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8719648"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Beginnings</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8722112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8727024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8728096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8732576"></a><p>
America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
<span class="emphasis"><em>to promote progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its
purpose, and its purpose is a public one, not the purpose of enriching
publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
580672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
740272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw
in chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Chapter 6. CHAPTER SIX: Founders">6</a>,
the English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few
followed the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the
English, the framers reinforced that objective, by requiring that
copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to Authors</span>»</span> only.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
588048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8588864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8589984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
747424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8748240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8749360"></a><p>
The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers
built structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they
case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built checks and balances into
the constitutional frame, structured to prevent otherwise inevitable
concentrations of power.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
592448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8593840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
751824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8753216"></a><p>
I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>
today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they ever
considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need to put our
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has changed in the 210
years since they first struck its design.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
596592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8597968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8599344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8600672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
755904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8757344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8758720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8760048"></a><p>
Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes
in technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.6. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright</span>»</span> today.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1442.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="«Copyright» today."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Let me explain how.
-</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Law: Duration</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
615456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Law: Duration</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
775072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it
faced the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that
the English had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws
protecting creative property, and some believed that these laws simply
supplemented common law rights that already protected creative
-authorship.<a href="#ftn.idp8619104" class="footnote" name="idp8619104"><sup class="footnote">[125]</sup></a>
+authorship.<a href="#ftn.idp8778672" class="footnote" name="idp8778672"><sup class="footnote">[125]</sup></a>
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
uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public
domain to reprint and distribute works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
622864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
782432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law,
federal protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law
the author was alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could
opt to renew the copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not
renew the copyright, his work passed into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
628960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
788528"></a><p>
While there were many works created in the United States in the first
ten years of the Republic, only 5 percent of the works were actually
registered under the federal copyright regime. Of all the work created
in the United States both before 1790 and from 1790 through 1800, 95
percent immediately passed into the public domain; the balance would
pass into the pubic domain within twenty-eight years at most, and more
-likely within fourteen years.<a href="#ftn.idp8631024" class="footnote" name="idp8631024"><sup class="footnote">[126]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
635200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8636416"></a><p>
+likely within fourteen years.<a href="#ftn.idp8790528" class="footnote" name="idp8790528"><sup class="footnote">[126]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
794704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8795984"></a><p>
This system of renewal was a crucial part of the American system
of copyright. It assured that the maximum terms of copyright would be
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.<a href="#ftn.idp8639296" class="footnote" name="idp8639296"><sup class="footnote">[127]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
642464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8643792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8644896"></a><p>
+domain.<a href="#ftn.idp8798864" class="footnote" name="idp8798864"><sup class="footnote">[127]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
802032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8803296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8804400"></a><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.<a href="#ftn.idp8646432" class="footnote" name="idp8646432"><sup class="footnote">[128]</sup></a> When that happens, the
+out of print after one year.<a href="#ftn.idp8805936" class="footnote" name="idp8805936"><sup class="footnote">[128]</sup></a> 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
In 1976, Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.
And in 1998, in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress
extended the term of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
659072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
818576"></a><p>
The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing
of works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the
public domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five
after the Sonny Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the
public domain, zero copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue
of the expiration of a copyright term.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
661392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
820896"></a><p>
The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the
framers established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright
would pass more quickly into the public domain. The works remaining
under protection would be those that had some continuing commercial
value.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
663616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8664400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8665520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
823056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8823840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8824960"></a><p>
The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For
all works created after 1978, there was only one copyright term—the
maximum term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
is orphaned by these changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement
that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit
them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
669200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8670592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
828640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8830032"></a><p>
The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to
renew 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.<a href="#ftn.idp8672688" class="footnote" name="idp8672688"><sup class="footnote">[129]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
674352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8675600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8676928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8678208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8679488"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Law: Scope</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
+years.<a href="#ftn.idp8832064" class="footnote" name="idp8832064"><sup class="footnote">[129]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
833728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8834976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8836304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8837648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8838992"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Law: Scope</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law.
The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent
of the changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
685296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
844800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><p>
In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave
of the history of American copyright law, there was a requirement that
works be deposited with the government before a copyright could be
secured.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
700240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
859888"></a><p>
The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible
understanding that for most works, no copyright was required. Again,
in the first ten years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible
that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the
original author.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
701872"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
861520"></a><p>
All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American system when
we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no requirement
that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now is
automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with
a ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a
copy available for others to copy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
705168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8706704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8707968"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
864816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8866352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8867552"></a><p>
Consider a practical example to understand the scope of these
differences.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact2"></a><p>
against another 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.<a href="#ftn.idp8711888" class="footnote" name="idp8711888"><sup class="footnote">[130]</sup></a>
+174 publishers in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp8871488" class="footnote" name="idp8871488"><sup class="footnote">[130]</sup></a>
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.
those activities were regulated by the original copyright act. These
creative activities remained free, while the activities of publishers
were restrained.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
721008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
880768"></a><p>
Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail,
every note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span>
exclusive
right to your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings
and a large proportion of the writings inspired by them.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
725568"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
885392"></a><p>
It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our
framers, though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this
expansion
<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.<a href="#ftn.idp8729088" class="footnote" name="idp8729088"><sup class="footnote">[131]</sup></a>
+not protect derivative rights at all.<a href="#ftn.idp8888912" class="footnote" name="idp8888912"><sup class="footnote">[131]</sup></a>
Whether or not you go that far, it seems
plain that whatever wrong is involved is fundamentally different from
the wrong of direct piracy.
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.<a href="#ftn.idp8733312" class="footnote" name="idp8733312"><sup class="footnote">[132]</sup></a>
+of my book.<a href="#ftn.idp8893136" class="footnote" name="idp8893136"><sup class="footnote">[132]</sup></a>
These two different uses of my creative work are treated the same.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
736736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8738080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8738896"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
896528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8897920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8898736"></a><p>
This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should
you be able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from
it without paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature
derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower:
simply to make clear that this expansion is a significant change from
the rights originally granted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
741520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8742784"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Law and Architecture: Reach</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
901360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8902624"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Law and Architecture: Reach</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users,
and authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making
-copies, and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<a href="#ftn.idp8749568" class="footnote" name="idp8749568"><sup class="footnote">[133]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
753424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
+copies, and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<a href="#ftn.idp8909584" class="footnote" name="idp8909584"><sup class="footnote">[133]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
913440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
<span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack
copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> be the trigger for copyright
law. More precisely, they should not <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be
the trigger for copyright law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
760544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
920672"></a><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,<a href="#ftn.idp8762464" class="footnote" name="idp8762464"><sup class="footnote">[134]</sup></a>
+the law of copyright automatically applies,<a href="#ftn.idp8922592" class="footnote" name="idp8922592"><sup class="footnote">[134]</sup></a>
because it is clear that the
current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen,
by the legislators who enacted copyright law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
763920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8765152"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
924048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8925280"></a><p>
We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely
empty circle.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.7. All potential uses of a book.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1521.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="All potential uses of a book."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksthreetypesofusesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightapplicabilityalteredbytechnologyof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtechnologycopyrightintentalteredby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs4"></a><p>
at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see
diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1541" title="Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.">Figure 10.9, “Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.”</a>).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
786688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8787984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
947040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8948400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><p>
Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses
that remain unregulated because the law considers these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>»</span>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1541.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
796592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8797696"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1541.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
957072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8958176"></a><p>
These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law
treats as unregulated because public policy demands that they remain
unregulated. You are free to quote from this book, even in a review
In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright owner's views.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
808864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8813808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
969472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8974352"></a><p>
Enter the Internet—a distributed, digital network where every use
-of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<a href="#ftn.idp8815360" class="footnote" name="idp8815360"><sup class="footnote">[135]</sup></a>
+of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<a href="#ftn.idp8975904" class="footnote" name="idp8975904"><sup class="footnote">[135]</sup></a>
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
would defend the unregulated uses of copyrighted work must look
exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the burden of this
shift.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
816864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8818864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8
977408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8979472"></a><p>
So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would
be no plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that
copyright law and hence the need for a fair use defense. The right to
read was effectively protected before because reading was not
regulated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8839328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8840608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8841936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8843264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8844656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9000352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9001696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9003088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9004416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9005808"></a><p>
This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for
free culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights
depend upon fair use—never even addressing the earlier question
<span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But when everything becomes
presumptively regulated, then the protections of fair use are not
enough.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8847408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8848752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8850016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8851264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8852576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8853968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8855312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9008560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9009840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9011040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9012288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9013600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9014992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9016336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was
in the business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies available
to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way to sell
videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors, put
the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8862688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9023616"></a><p>
The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began
to think about the Internet as another way to distribute these
previews. The idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span> Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book
before you buy the book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit
from the movie on-line before you bought it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8866672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9027536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors
that it intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet
(rather than sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as they had. So they filed a
lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these rights were in fact
their rights.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8873552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8874800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8879984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9034416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9035664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9040832"></a><p>
Disney countersued—for $100 million in damages. Those damages
were predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
Disney's permission.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8883040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9043888"></a><p>
Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts
would consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change
that gives Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't
copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the copyright owner's
control. The technology expands the scope of effective control,
because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8885440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8886688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8888000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8889328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8890720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8892032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8893376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8894192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8895008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9046288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9047536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9048784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9050176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9051568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9052944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9054288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9055104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9055920"></a><p>
No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for
control is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes & Noble has the
second important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8902448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8903536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9062896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9063984"></a><p>
In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.
The law, 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="idp
8905424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9065872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
There's a famous story about a battle between the Marx Brothers
and Warner Brothers. The Marxes intended to make a parody of
<em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers objected. They
wrote a nasty letter to the Marxes, warning them that there would be
serious legal consequences if they went forward with their
-plan.<a href="#ftn.idp8910656" class="footnote" name="idp8910656"><sup class="footnote">[136]</sup></a>
+plan.<a href="#ftn.idp9070992" class="footnote" name="idp9070992"><sup class="footnote">[136]</sup></a>
</p><p>
This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned
Warner Brothers that the Marx Brothers <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">were brothers long before
-you were.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8913248" class="footnote" name="idp8913248"><sup class="footnote">[137]</sup></a>
+you were.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9073584" class="footnote" name="idp9073584"><sup class="footnote">[137]</sup></a>
The Marx Brothers therefore owned the word
<em class="citetitle">brothers</em>, and if Warner Brothers insisted on
trying to control <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, then the Marx
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="idp
8920304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8921616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9080576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9081824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
Consider the life of my Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
An e-book is a book delivered in electronic form. An Adobe eBook is
technology, and the publisher delivers the content by using the
technology.
</p><p>
-In <a class="xref" href="#fig-1611" title="Figure 10.12. Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader">Figure 10.12, “Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader”</a> is a picture of an old version of my
+In <a class="xref" href="#fig-example-adobe-ebook-reader" title="Figure 10.12. Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader">Figure 10.12, “Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader”</a> is a picture of an old version of my
Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this
<em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy cover, and then
a button at the bottom called Permissions.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-
1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.12. Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1611.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-
example-adobe-ebook-reader"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.12. Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/example-adobe-ebook-reader.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Picture of an old version of Adobe eBook Reader"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the
permissions that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1612.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
print ten pages from the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the
permission to use the Read Aloud button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>
read aloud through the computer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8936768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8937584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9096880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9097696"></a><p>
Here's the e-book for another work in the public domain (including the
translation): Aristotle's <em class="citetitle">Politics</em>.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.14. E-book of Aristotle's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politics</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1621.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="E-book of Aristotle's «Politics»"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted
at all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear
the book.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.15. List of the permissions for Aristotle's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politics</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1622.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="List of the permissions for Aristotle's «Politics»."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8946016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8946848"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.15. List of the permissions for Aristotle's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politics</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1622.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="List of the permissions for Aristotle's «Politics»."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9106112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9106944"></a><p>
Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the
original e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of
Ideas</em>:
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.<a href="#ftn.idp8952976" class="footnote" name="idp8952976"><sup class="footnote">[138]</sup></a>
+power.<a href="#ftn.idp9113056" class="footnote" name="idp9113056"><sup class="footnote">[138]</sup></a>
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
aloud—it's not that the company will sue you if you do; instead,
if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine simply
won't read aloud.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8957264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8958976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9117792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9119504"></a><p>
These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a
world where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when
could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe agree that
such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer because
the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8976400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8977728"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9136480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9137872"></a><p>
The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most
innovative companies developing strategies to balance open access to
content with incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's
technology enables control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this
control. That incentive is understandable, yet what it creates is
often crazy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8979760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8981024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9139968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9141168"></a><p>
To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite
story of mine that makes the same point.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
how to teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com
was giving information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack
their computer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8991488"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9151744"></a><p>
If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
<em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in
dance 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="idp
8996496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8997808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8999120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9156752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9158064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9159376"></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 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We
completely legal activity. One imagines that the owner of aibopet.com
thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could there be with teaching
a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
002272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
162528"></a><p>
Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show—
not literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic
named Ed Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic
lawyers, Ed Felten stood his 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.<a href="#ftn.idp9004784" class="footnote" name="idp9004784"><sup class="footnote">[139]</sup></a>
+But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<a href="#ftn.idp9165040" class="footnote" name="idp9165040"><sup class="footnote">[139]</sup></a>
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
Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent
AIBO-ware's copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the
anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
024544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9025792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9027040"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
184752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9186064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9187376"></a><p>
And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system
of encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter
from an RIAA lawyer that read:
measures. It was designed to ban those devices, whether or not the use
of the copyrighted material made possible by that circumvention would
have been a copyright violation.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
035744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9036560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9037376"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
196080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9196896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9197712"></a><p>
Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to
dance jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted
suggested, Felten himself was distributing a circumvention technology.
Thus, even though he was not himself infringing anyone's copyright,
his academic paper was enabling others to infringe others' copyright.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
040640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
200976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in
1981 by Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that
the VCR could be banned because it was a copyright-infringing
that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span>
for example, had testified in that case that he wanted people to feel
free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9044672"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9205056"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that
you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe I'm going on too long,
but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active
in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
-important.<a href="#ftn.idp9048688" class="footnote" name="idp9048688"><sup class="footnote">[140]</sup></a>
+important.<a href="#ftn.idp9209072" class="footnote" name="idp9209072"><sup class="footnote">[140]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were
</p><p>
This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to
the DMCA.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9054544"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9214928"></a>
</p><p>
No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
</p><p>
practice or to protect against an intruder. At least some would say that
such a use would be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good
and bad uses.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="70%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1711.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
061808"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="70%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1711.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
222256"></a><p>
The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world
where guns are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and
circumvention technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever
died from copyright circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention
technologies absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some
good, but permits guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
063840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9065152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9066464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9067280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9068096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
224288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9225552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9226864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9227680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9228496"></a><p>
The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are
changing the balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright
owners restrict fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9074144" class="footnote" name="idp9074144"><sup class="footnote">[141]</sup></a>
+simply continue it.<a href="#ftn.idp9234544" class="footnote" name="idp9234544"><sup class="footnote">[141]</sup></a>
</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 with by the copyright police. You were free in
that space to do as you wished with this part of our culture. You were
allowed to build on it as you wished without fear of legal control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
076864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
237264"></a><p>
But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would
</p><p>
These changes are of two sorts: the scope of concentration, and its
nature.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
084624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9085408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9086240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9087072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9087888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9088704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
244960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9245744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9246528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9247360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9248176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9248992"></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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media sources.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9090192" class="footnote" name="idp9090192"><sup class="footnote">[142]</sup></a>
+ownership, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media sources.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9250480" class="footnote" name="idp9250480"><sup class="footnote">[142]</sup></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9091408" class="footnote" name="idp9091408"><sup class="footnote">[143]</sup></a>
+U.S. music market.<a href="#ftn.idp9251696" class="footnote" name="idp9251696"><sup class="footnote">[143]</sup></a>
The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
-programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers nationwide.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9093536" class="footnote" name="idp9093536"><sup class="footnote">[144]</sup></a>
+programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers nationwide.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9253824" class="footnote" name="idp9253824"><sup class="footnote">[144]</sup></a>
</p><p>
The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation,
the nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
markets, the two largest broadcasters control 74 percent of that
market's revenues. Overall, just four companies control 90 percent of
the nation's radio advertising revenues.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
097088"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
257376"></a><p>
Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well. Today,
there are six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than
there were eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the
of all cable revenue. This is a market far from the free press the
framers sought to protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well
protected— by the market.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
098128"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
258416"></a><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,
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9100928" class="footnote" name="idp9100928"><sup class="footnote">[145]</sup></a>
+the same function in the United States.<a href="#ftn.idp9261216" class="footnote" name="idp9261216"><sup class="footnote">[145]</sup></a>
</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
</p><p>
Here's a representative story that begins to suggest how this
integration may matter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
109616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9110400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9111184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
269904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9270688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9271472"></a><p>
In 1969, Norman Lear created a pilot for <em class="citetitle">All in the Family</em>. He took
the pilot to ABC. The network didn't like it. It was too edgy, they told
Lear. Make it again. Lear made a second pilot, more edgy than the
Rather than comply, Lear simply took the show elsewhere. CBS
was happy to have the series; ABC could not stop Lear from walking.
The copyrights that Lear held assured an independence from network
-control.<a href="#ftn.idp9113616" class="footnote" name="idp9113616"><sup class="footnote">[146]</sup></a>
+control.<a href="#ftn.idp9273904" class="footnote" name="idp9273904"><sup class="footnote">[146]</sup></a>
</p><p>
it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by
controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16
new series were produced independently of conglomerate control, last
-year there was one.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9120224" class="footnote" name="idp9120224"><sup class="footnote">[147]</sup></a>
+year there was one.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9280512" class="footnote" name="idp9280512"><sup class="footnote">[147]</sup></a>
In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was owned by the networks
that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number
of prime time television hours per week produced by network studios
increased over 200%, whereas the number of prime time television hours
per week produced by independent studios decreased
-63%.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9122768" class="footnote" name="idp9122768"><sup class="footnote">[148]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
123760"></a><p>
+63%.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9283056" class="footnote" name="idp9283056"><sup class="footnote">[148]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
284048"></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 increasingly
owned by the network.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
125632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9126448"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
285920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9286736"></a><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,
u]sed to have dozens and dozens of thriving independent production
companies producing television programs. Now you have less than a
-handful.<a href="#ftn.idp9129120" class="footnote" name="idp9129120"><sup class="footnote">[149]</sup></a>
+handful.<a href="#ftn.idp9289408" class="footnote" name="idp9289408"><sup class="footnote">[149]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such
large and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.
to Siberia, but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical,
different views are quashed. This is not the environment for a
democracy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
132224"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
292368"></a><p>
Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's
Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms find it rational to ignore
new, breakthrough technologies that compete with their core business.
The same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media
-companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<a href="#ftn.idp9134800" class="footnote" name="idp9134800"><sup class="footnote">[150]</sup></a>
+companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<a href="#ftn.idp9295072" class="footnote" name="idp9295072"><sup class="footnote">[150]</sup></a>
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="idp9138240"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9298480"></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
is through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we
depend fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about
these issues.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommercials"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtelevisionadvertisingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
148192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommercials"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtelevisionadvertisingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
308288"></a><p>
Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched
a media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign produced
scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal drugs. In
money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in
the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your
message will be heard then?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
152576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9153648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9154464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9155584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
312672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9313744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9314560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9315680"></a><p>
No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9157936" class="footnote" name="idp9157936"><sup class="footnote">[151]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
170400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9171712"></a><p>
+rights of the stations to be this biased.<a href="#ftn.idp9318032" class="footnote" name="idp9318032"><sup class="footnote">[151]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
330544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9331856"></a><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 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies
matters. You might like the positions the handful of companies
selects. But you should not like a world in which a mere few get to
decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
174192"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Together</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
334272"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Together</h2></div></div></div><p>
There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the
copyright warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span>
In the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9185744" class="footnote" name="idp9185744"><sup class="footnote">[152]</sup></a>
+known.<a href="#ftn.idp9345776" class="footnote" name="idp9345776"><sup class="footnote">[152]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>This has been</strong></span> a long chapter. Its
point can now be briefly stated.
course copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all
-property rights<a href="#ftn.idp9228240" class="footnote" name="idp9228240"><sup class="footnote">[153]</sup></a>)
+property rights<a href="#ftn.idp9388272" class="footnote" name="idp9388272"><sup class="footnote">[153]</sup></a>)
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
build upon or transform a creative work. American culture was born
free, and for almost 180 years our country consistently protected a
vibrant and rich free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
232576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
392608"></a><p>
We achieved that free culture because our law respected important
limits on the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those limits, by
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 style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8367392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8367392" class="para"><sup class="para">[118] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8527536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8527536" class="para"><sup class="para">[118] </sup></a>
Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.
4794, H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the
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 id="ftn.idp8374768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8374768" class="para"><sup class="para">[119] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8534912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8534912" class="para"><sup class="para">[119] </sup></a>
Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle
of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
the best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property and the
Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 26–27.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8437520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8437520" class="para"><sup class="para">[120] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8597504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8597504" class="para"><sup class="para">[120] </sup></a>
By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't
mean to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they
Other Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95;
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Legal Studies</em>,
June 1998.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8447920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8447920" class="para"><sup class="para">[121] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8607712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8607712" class="para"><sup class="para">[121] </sup></a>
Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They object
because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any
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="idp8453152"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8453984"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8454800"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8455648"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8505376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8505376" class="para"><sup class="para">[122] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8612944"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8613776"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8614592"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8615440"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8665344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8665344" class="para"><sup class="para">[122] </sup></a>
See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?</span>»</span>
BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at
R. Schoenberger, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6
October 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #24</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8518528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8518528" class="para"><sup class="para">[123] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8678544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8678544" class="para"><sup class="para">[123] </sup></a>
Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley, 1994), 170–71.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8549776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8549776" class="para"><sup class="para">[124] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8709328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8709328" class="para"><sup class="para">[124] </sup></a>
See, for example, James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8619104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8619104" class="para"><sup class="para">[125] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8778672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8778672" class="para"><sup class="para">[125] </sup></a>
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,
Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had, or
were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
(emphasis added).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8621392"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8631024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8631024" class="para"><sup class="para">[126] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8780960"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8790528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8790528" class="para"><sup class="para">[126] </sup></a>
Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790
to 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
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 id="ftn.idp8639296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8639296" class="para"><sup class="para">[127] </sup></a>
+Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8798864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8798864" class="para"><sup class="para">[127] </sup></a>
Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For
instance, of the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were
1963), 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William
M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471, 498–501, and
-accompanying figures. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8646432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8646432" class="para"><sup class="para">[128] </sup></a>
+accompanying figures. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8805936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8805936" class="para"><sup class="para">[128] </sup></a>
-See Ringer, ch. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8672688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8672688" class="para"><sup class="para">[129] </sup></a>
+See Ringer, ch. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8832064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8832064" class="para"><sup class="para">[129] </sup></a>
These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the
first year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never
more than thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and
Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8711888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8711888" class="para"><sup class="para">[130] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8871488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8871488" class="para"><sup class="para">[130] </sup></a>
See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University Journal 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 id="ftn.idp8729088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8729088" class="para"><sup class="para">[131] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8888912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8888912" class="para"><sup class="para">[131] </sup></a>
Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>»</span> <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="idp8731584"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8733312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8733312" class="para"><sup class="para">[132] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8891408"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8893136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8893136" class="para"><sup class="para">[132] </sup></a>
Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument
about the difference that copyright law should draw (from the
Copyright's Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law
Journal</em> 112 (2002): 1–60 (see especially
pp. 53–59).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8735520"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8749568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8749568" class="para"><sup class="para">[133] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8895344"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8909584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8909584" class="para"><sup class="para">[133] </sup></a>
This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law
certainly regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>—a public performance of a
<em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the presumption under the
existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span> 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8762464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8762464" class="para"><sup class="para">[134] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8922592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8922592" class="para"><sup class="para">[134] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp8815360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8815360" class="para"><sup class="para">[135] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8975904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8975904" class="para"><sup class="para">[135] </sup></a>
I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be different, but
rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical networks
need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital network
could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same number
of copies remain.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8910656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8910656" class="para"><sup class="para">[136] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9070992" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9070992" class="para"><sup class="para">[136] </sup></a>
See David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Law and
Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172–73.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8913248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8913248" class="para"><sup class="para">[137] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9073584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9073584" class="para"><sup class="para">[137] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8913952"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9074288"></a>
Ibid. See also Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
Copywrongs</em>, 1–3.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8952976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8952976" class="para"><sup class="para">[138] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9113056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9113056" class="para"><sup class="para">[138] </sup></a>
In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might,
for example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I
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 id="ftn.idp9004784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9004784" class="para"><sup class="para">[139] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9165040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9165040" class="para"><sup class="para">[139] </sup></a>
See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles
April 2001; Electronic Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked
Questions about <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9011664"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9048688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9048688" class="para"><sup class="para">[140] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9171920"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9209072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9209072" class="para"><sup class="para">[140] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9049424"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9209808"></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417,
455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the VCR. See
James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of
the VCR</em> (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270–71.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8915248"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9074144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9074144" class="para"><sup class="para">[141] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9075584"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9234544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9234544" class="para"><sup class="para">[141] </sup></a>
For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal Fictions,
Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles
Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17 (1997): 651.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9090192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9090192" class="para"><sup class="para">[142] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9250480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9250480" class="para"><sup class="para">[142] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp9091408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9091408" class="para"><sup class="para">[143] </sup></a>
+(statement of Senator John McCain). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp9251696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9251696" class="para"><sup class="para">[143] </sup></a>
Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9093536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9093536" class="para"><sup class="para">[144] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9253824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9253824" class="para"><sup class="para">[144] </sup></a>
Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>,
31 May 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9100928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9100928" class="para"><sup class="para">[145] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9261216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9261216" class="para"><sup class="para">[145] </sup></a>
James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em> (September
2003): 89.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9103040"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9113616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9113616" class="para"><sup class="para">[146] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9263328"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9273904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9273904" class="para"><sup class="para">[146] </sup></a>
Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum Center
Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span> St. Louis,
<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 id="ftn.idp9120224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9120224" class="para"><sup class="para">[147] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9280512" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9280512" class="para"><sup class="para">[147] </sup></a>
NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
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 id="ftn.idp9122768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9122768" class="para"><sup class="para">[148] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9283056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9283056" class="para"><sup class="para">[148] </sup></a>
Ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9129120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9129120" class="para"><sup class="para">[149] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9289408" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9289408" class="para"><sup class="para">[149] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with Bill Moyers</em>, Bill
Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9134800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9134800" class="para"><sup class="para">[150] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9295072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9295072" class="para"><sup class="para">[150] </sup></a>
Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do Business</em>
235–51. For a more recent study, see 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 id="ftn.idp9157936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9157936" class="para"><sup class="para">[151] </sup></a>
-
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9158672"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9159424"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9160240"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9161072"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9161856"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9162672"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9163456"></a>
+(New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp9318032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9318032" class="para"><sup class="para">[151] </sup></a>
+
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9318768"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9319520"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9320336"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9321168"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9321952"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9322768"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9323600"></a>
The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads
that directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within
the Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against
available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#32</a>. The ground was that the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too
controversial.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9185744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9185744" class="para"><sup class="para">[152] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9345776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9345776" class="para"><sup class="para">[152] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9186816"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9346848"></a>
Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">four surrenders</span>»</span> of
copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9228240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9228240" class="para"><sup class="para">[153] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9388272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9388272" class="para"><sup class="para">[153] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9228976"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9389008"></a>
It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist
movement to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to
balance public and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
<span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> 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.<a href="#ftn.idp9250736" class="footnote" name="idp9250736"><sup class="footnote">[154]</sup></a>
+Andes.<a href="#ftn.idp9410704" class="footnote" name="idp9410704"><sup class="footnote">[154]</sup></a>
The valley is extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture,
an even climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub
that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez
plot for murder mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent
certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at the
scene. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
268608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9269712"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
428576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9429680"></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
(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="idp9278304"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9438208"></a>
</p><p>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9282096" class="footnote" name="idp9282096"><sup class="footnote">[155]</sup></a>
+implemented.<a href="#ftn.idp9442000" class="footnote" name="idp9442000"><sup class="footnote">[155]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
293280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
453184"></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
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9301520" class="footnote" name="idp9301520"><sup class="footnote">[156]</sup></a>
+interests.<a href="#ftn.idp9461424" class="footnote" name="idp9461424"><sup class="footnote">[156]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal,
one of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
changed.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9304192"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9464096"></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 style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9250736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9250736" class="para"><sup class="para">[154] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9410704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9410704" class="para"><sup class="para">[154] </sup></a>
H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (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 id="ftn.idp9282096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9282096" class="para"><sup class="para">[155] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9442000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9442000" class="para"><sup class="para">[155] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9282800"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9442704"></a>
For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003,
identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9291392"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9292208"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9301520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9301520" class="para"><sup class="para">[156] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9451296"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9452112"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9461424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9461424" class="para"><sup class="para">[156] </sup></a>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
first time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the
power of the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest in
our history.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
311824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9312640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
471840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9472656"></a><p>
Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is still on
the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme claims
of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
314960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
474976"></a><p>
There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to
describe just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite
on remote topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative
work spread across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this
work is presumptively illegal.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
323120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9323904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9325024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9326144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9326976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
483136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9483920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9485040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9486160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9486992"></a><p>
That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the
examples of extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to
proliferate. It is impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9329696" class="footnote" name="idp9329696"><sup class="footnote">[157]</sup></a>
+million.<a href="#ftn.idp9489776" class="footnote" name="idp9489776"><sup class="footnote">[157]</sup></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9333584" class="footnote" name="idp9333584"><sup class="footnote">[158]</sup></a>
+suffering.<a href="#ftn.idp9493664" class="footnote" name="idp9493664"><sup class="footnote">[158]</sup></a>
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?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
338432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
498512"></a><p>
The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely
high penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will
either never be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive
message is necessarily political, or because the subject is
controversial, but because the very act of creating the art is legally
fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal art</span>»</span> tour the United
-States.<a href="#ftn.idp9341584" class="footnote" name="idp9341584"><sup class="footnote">[159]</sup></a>
+States.<a href="#ftn.idp9501664" class="footnote" name="idp9501664"><sup class="footnote">[159]</sup></a>
In what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist?
In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that is
critical or reflective.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
345520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
505600"></a><p>
Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the
changing law. I described that change in detail in chapter
<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. CHAPTER TEN: «Property»">10</a>. But an
content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a list of
the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that anyone
could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
348336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
508416"></a><p>
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether
his painting infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day
painter, using the tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web,
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="idp9
370944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9373072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9373888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
530912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9533040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9533856"></a><p>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory
strategy that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. CHAPTER TEN: «Property»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive
that were designed and executed to teach venture capitalists a
lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry calls a
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the Valley—has been learned.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
377456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9378096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
537424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9538064"></a><p>
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning
I told in <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way that
even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
383056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
542976"></a><p>
In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com. MP3.com
was keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to
facilitate new ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to
facilitate new ways to create content. Unlike the major labels,
MP3.com offered creators a venue to distribute their creativity,
without demanding an exclusive engagement from the creators.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
384672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
544592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
my.mp3.com service was to give users access to their own content, and
as a by-product, by seeing the content they already owned, to discover
the kind of content the users liked.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
390112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
550032"></a><p>
To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000
CDs to a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who
uploaded the music, but that would have taken a great deal of time,
had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while this was 50,000
copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers something
they had already bought.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
393856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9394992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9398064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9399184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9400288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
553776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9554912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9557968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9559088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9560192"></a><p>
Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels,
headed by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled
with four of the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found
illegal; therefore, this lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had
dared to suggest that the law was less restrictive than the labels
demanded.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
403664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
563568"></a><p>
The clear purpose of this lawsuit (which was settled for an
unspecified amount shortly after the story was no longer covered in
the press) was to send an unequivocal message to lawyers advising
industry directs its guns against them. It is also you. So those of
you who believe the law should be less restrictive should realize that
such a view of the law will cost you and your firm dearly.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
406192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9407472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9408784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9410224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9411040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9415168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9415952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9416768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9417584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9418400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9419216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9421776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9422592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
566096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9567312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9568560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9570000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9570816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9575008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9575792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9576608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9577424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9578240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9579056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9581664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9582480"></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).<a href="#ftn.idp9423968" class="footnote" name="idp9423968"><sup class="footnote">[160]</sup></a>
+(Hank Barry).<a href="#ftn.idp9583856" class="footnote" name="idp9583856"><sup class="footnote">[160]</sup></a>
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
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. … <a href="#ftn.idp9357376" class="footnote" name="idp9357376"><sup class="footnote">[161]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
433952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9435264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9436576"></a><p>
+United States with bona fide MP3 players. … <a href="#ftn.idp9517456" class="footnote" name="idp9517456"><sup class="footnote">[161]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
593840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9595088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9596400"></a><p>
This is the world of the mafia—filled with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">your money or your
life</span>»</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
that the law empowers copyright holders to exercise. It is a system
innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and
unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and
much less creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
441664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
600848"></a><p>
The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of law in
both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
of content. One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make
the Internet less efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then,
this response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
448816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
608000"></a><p>
The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of
the content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that
would require computers to determine whether the content they access
-is protected or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<a href="#ftn.idp9450176" class="footnote" name="idp9450176"><sup class="footnote">[162]</sup></a>
+is protected or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<a href="#ftn.idp9609360" class="footnote" name="idp9609360"><sup class="footnote">[162]</sup></a>
Congress has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on any device capable of
transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would disable
the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast flag. Other
members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers from
liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt down
-copyright violators and disable their machines.<a href="#ftn.idp9453120" class="footnote" name="idp9453120"><sup class="footnote">[163]</sup></a>
+copyright violators and disable their machines.<a href="#ftn.idp9612304" class="footnote" name="idp9612304"><sup class="footnote">[163]</sup></a>
</p><p>
In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the
code, why not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any
the technology, but will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly
those requirements.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
455232"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
614416"></a><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.<a href="#ftn.idp9456432" class="footnote" name="idp9456432"><sup class="footnote">[164]</sup></a>
+would impose.<a href="#ftn.idp9615616" class="footnote" name="idp9615616"><sup class="footnote">[164]</sup></a>
Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not be
protected. Instead, they argued, any protection should not do more
harm than good.
of regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.
When done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done
wrong, it is regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
460080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9461152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9461968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9462784"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
619264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9620336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9621152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9621968"></a><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. CHAPTER TEN: «Property»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as
regulation, and subject to important qualifications outlined by
Jessica Litman in her book <em class="citetitle">Digital
-Copyright</em>,<a href="#ftn.idp9465664" class="footnote" name="idp9465664"><sup class="footnote">[165]</sup></a>
+Copyright</em>,<a href="#ftn.idp9624848" class="footnote" name="idp9624848"><sup class="footnote">[165]</sup></a>
overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter
<a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. CHAPTER TEN: «Property»">10</a> details,
when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a balance
creators, both the courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions
that will have the effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetradioon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiooninternet"></a><p>
-The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<a href="#ftn.idp9474704" class="footnote" name="idp9474704"><sup class="footnote">[166]</sup></a>
+The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<a href="#ftn.idp9633936" class="footnote" name="idp9633936"><sup class="footnote">[166]</sup></a>
It has been mirrored in the responses threatened and actually
implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
-here.<a href="#ftn.idp9479024" class="footnote" name="idp9479024"><sup class="footnote">[167]</sup></a>
+here.<a href="#ftn.idp9638256" class="footnote" name="idp9638256"><sup class="footnote">[167]</sup></a>
But there is one example that captures the flavor of them all. This is
the story of the demise of Internet radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
485776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9486864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
645008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9646096"></a><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. CHAPTER FOUR: «Pirates»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording
easily develop and market their content to a relatively large number
of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
494528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
653760"></a><p>
Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9430208" class="footnote" name="idp9430208"><sup class="footnote">[168]</sup></a>
+shackles.<a href="#ftn.idp9590096" class="footnote" name="idp9590096"><sup class="footnote">[168]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
This potential for FM radio was never realized—not
because Armstrong was wrong about the technology, but because he
underestimated the power of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and
-legislation</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9499584" class="footnote" name="idp9499584"><sup class="footnote">[169]</sup></a>
+legislation</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9658816" class="footnote" name="idp9658816"><sup class="footnote">[169]</sup></a>
to retard the growth of this competing technology.
</p><p>
Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For
those imposed by the law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first
question we should ask is, what copyright rules would govern Internet
radio?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
503152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9504256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9505360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
662432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9663536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9664640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></a><p>
But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a
new industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very
William Fisher 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.<a href="#ftn.idp9519056" class="footnote" name="idp9519056"><sup class="footnote">[170]</sup></a>
+over $1 million a year.<a href="#ftn.idp9678384" class="footnote" name="idp9678384"><sup class="footnote">[170]</sup></a>
A regular radio station broadcasting the same content would pay no
equivalent fee.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
524720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9526048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9527440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9528768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9530208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
684048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9685440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9686832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9688160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9689600"></a><p>
The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio
station) would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every
unique user identifier;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
the country in which the user received the transmissions.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
548304"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
707760"></a><p>
The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting
requirements, pending further study. And he also changed the original
rates set by the arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the
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="idp9
550880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
710336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></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,
that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so
high, you're going to drive the small webcasters out of
business. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
561776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
721296"></a><p>
And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be
an industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a
high rate and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis
added.)
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
564480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9565728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9567136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9568528"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
724000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9725248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9726656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9727984"></a><p>
Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so
that this platform of potentially immense competition, which would
cause the diversity and range of content available to explode, would not
or the left, who should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is
practically no one, on either the right or the left, who is doing anything
effective to prevent it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
570704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9572032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9573360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9574736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9575984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9577232"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
730224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9731552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9732880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9734192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9735440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9736688"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
dinosaurs
a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9581888" class="footnote" name="idp9581888"><sup class="footnote">[171]</sup></a>
+Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<a href="#ftn.idp9741344" class="footnote" name="idp9741344"><sup class="footnote">[171]</sup></a>
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'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.<a href="#ftn.idp9518160" class="footnote" name="idp9518160"><sup class="footnote">[172]</sup></a>
+was.<a href="#ftn.idp9677488" class="footnote" name="idp9677488"><sup class="footnote">[172]</sup></a>
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
is an embarrassment to our tradition. And the consequence of our law
as it is, is that those with the power can use the law to quash any rights
they oppose.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
588464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
747920"></a><p>
Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just
something more extreme than anything we've seen before. We
experimented with alcohol prohibition, at a time when the per capita
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9590096" class="footnote" name="idp9590096"><sup class="footnote">[173]</sup></a>
+number were criminals.<a href="#ftn.idp9749552" class="footnote" name="idp9749552"><sup class="footnote">[173]</sup></a>
We have
launched a war on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated
-narcotics that 7 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<a href="#ftn.idp9592384" class="footnote" name="idp9592384"><sup class="footnote">[174]</sup></a>
+narcotics that 7 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<a href="#ftn.idp9751840" class="footnote" name="idp9751840"><sup class="footnote">[174]</sup></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9593712" class="footnote" name="idp9593712"><sup class="footnote">[175]</sup></a>
+cheat.<a href="#ftn.idp9753168" class="footnote" name="idp9753168"><sup class="footnote">[175]</sup></a>
We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of
ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a result, a
huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
596272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
755728"></a><p>
This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law
students about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was a
right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
capacities of digital technologies.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
609968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
769424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large
process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful
the world where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of
plastic or were part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights
management</span>»</span> system.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
616704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
776160"></a><p>
If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination
of the ability to freely move content, then these technologies to
interfere with the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But
Valenti is charming; but not so charming as to justify giving up a
tradition as deep and important as our tradition of free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
622384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
781840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and
follows directly from any war of prohibition. As Electronic Frontier
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn
a very large percentage of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This
is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
627024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
786480"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>»</span> von Lohmann
explains,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9633488" class="footnote" name="idp9633488"><sup class="footnote">[176]</sup></a>
+Jesse Jordan.<a href="#ftn.idp9792944" class="footnote" name="idp9792944"><sup class="footnote">[176]</sup></a>
</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.<a href="#ftn.idp9639632" class="footnote" name="idp9639632"><sup class="footnote">[177]</sup></a>
+RIAA had adopted to track Napster users.<a href="#ftn.idp9799088" class="footnote" name="idp9799088"><sup class="footnote">[177]</sup></a>
Using a sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in
effect a fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of
one of those MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
properly protected her content from the network (do you know how to do
that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to identify your daughter
as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules that universities are beginning
-to deploy,<a href="#ftn.idp9644240" class="footnote" name="idp9644240"><sup class="footnote">[178]</sup></a>
+to deploy,<a href="#ftn.idp9803696" class="footnote" name="idp9803696"><sup class="footnote">[178]</sup></a>
your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
network. She can, in some cases, be expelled.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
652576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9653888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
812032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9813344"></a><p>
Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire
a lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can
plead that she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or
considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain? Americans or the law?
Which is American, a constant war on our own people or a concerted
effort through our democracy to change our law?
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9329696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9329696" class="para"><sup class="para">[157] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9489776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9489776" class="para"><sup class="para">[157] </sup></a>
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, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins U.S. District Court
Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7 July 2003), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9332432"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9333584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9333584" class="para"><sup class="para">[158] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9492512"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9493664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9493664" class="para"><sup class="para">[158] </sup></a>
The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For
an overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,'
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="idp9337152"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9341584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9341584" class="para"><sup class="para">[159] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9497232"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9501664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9501664" class="para"><sup class="para">[159] </sup></a>
See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>»</span> <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 id="ftn.idp9423968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9423968" class="para"><sup class="para">[160] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9583856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9583856" class="para"><sup class="para">[160] </sup></a>
See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel argument about the effects on
at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>.
See also Jon Healey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9357376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9357376" class="para"><sup class="para">[161] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9517456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9517456" class="para"><sup class="para">[161] </sup></a>
Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>»</span> <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="idp9432752"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9450176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9450176" class="para"><sup class="para">[162] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9592640"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9609360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9609360" class="para"><sup class="para">[162] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> GartnerG2 and
the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School
(2003), 33–35, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9453120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9453120" class="para"><sup class="para">[163] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9612304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9612304" class="para"><sup class="para">[163] </sup></a>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9456432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9456432" class="para"><sup class="para">[164] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9615616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9615616" class="para"><sup class="para">[164] </sup></a>
See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span> Newsbytes,
February 2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9465664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9465664" class="para"><sup class="para">[165] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9624848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9624848" class="para"><sup class="para">[165] </sup></a>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst,
N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2001).
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9466880"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9467712"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9474704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9474704" class="para"><sup class="para">[166] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9626064"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9626896"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9633936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9633936" class="para"><sup class="para">[166] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9475440"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9634672"></a>
The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d
1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement
liability.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9479024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9479024" class="para"><sup class="para">[167] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9638256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9638256" class="para"><sup class="para">[167] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9479760"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9480544"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9481360"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9482176"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9638992"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9639776"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9640592"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9641408"></a>
For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, 33–34,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9430208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9430208" class="para"><sup class="para">[168] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9590096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9590096" class="para"><sup class="para">[168] </sup></a>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9499584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9499584" class="para"><sup class="para">[169] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9658816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9658816" class="para"><sup class="para">[169] </sup></a>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9519056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9519056" class="para"><sup class="para">[170] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9678384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9678384" class="para"><sup class="para">[170] </sup></a>
This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright
Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an
radio and diversity. Yes, this is done in the name of getting
royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the play of powerful
interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral way.</span>»</span>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9522768"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9523552"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9581888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9581888" class="para"><sup class="para">[171] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9682096"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9682880"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9741344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9741344" class="para"><sup class="para">[171] </sup></a>
Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span> Pew
Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #46</a>.
The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that 37 million
Americans had downloaded music files from the Internet by early 2001.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9518160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9518160" class="para"><sup class="para">[172] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9677488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9677488" class="para"><sup class="para">[172] </sup></a>
Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003, Business.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9590096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9590096" class="para"><sup class="para">[173] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9749552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9749552" class="para"><sup class="para">[173] </sup></a>
Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81, no. 2 (1991): 242.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9592384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9592384" class="para"><sup class="para">[174] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9751840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9751840" class="para"><sup class="para">[174] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp9593712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9593712" class="para"><sup class="para">[175] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9753168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9753168" class="para"><sup class="para">[175] </sup></a>
See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36 (1998): 818 (survey of
compliance literature).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9633488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9633488" class="para"><sup class="para">[176] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9792944" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9792944" class="para"><sup class="para">[176] </sup></a>
See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No Snoop
Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is
Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9639632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9639632" class="para"><sup class="para">[177] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9799088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9799088" class="para"><sup class="para">[177] </sup></a>
See <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
Some Methods Used,</span>»</span> CNN.com, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9644240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9644240" class="para"><sup class="para">[178] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9803696" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9803696" class="para"><sup class="para">[178] </sup></a>
See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four
gave birth to a hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build
a library of public domain works by scanning these works and making
them available for free.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
681536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
840800"></a><p>
Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain
works, though even a copy would have been of great value to people
across the world who can't get access to printed versions of these
accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred transformed Hawthorne, and
many others, into a form more accessible—technically
accessible—today.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
679680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
839008"></a><p>
Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same
source as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed into the
public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
animated cartoons, sometimes successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
(<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure Planet</em>). These are all
commercial publications of public domain works.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
686992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9688304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
846256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9847568"></a><p>
The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of
public domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally
thousands of others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9690864" class="footnote" name="idp9690864"><sup class="footnote">[179]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
699280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9700096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9700912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
+generally.<a href="#ftn.idp9850192" class="footnote" name="idp9850192"><sup class="footnote">[179]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
858592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9859408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9860224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><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
would pass into the public domain until that year (and not even then,
if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same period,
more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
706560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9707744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9709136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9709952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
865824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9867008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9868336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9869152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
(CTEA), enacted in memory of the congressman and former musician
Sonny Bono, who, his widow, Mary Bono, says, believed that
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be forever.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9715296" class="footnote" name="idp9715296"><sup class="footnote">[180]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
718752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9720192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9721312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9722144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9722976"></a><p>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be forever.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9874496" class="footnote" name="idp9874496"><sup class="footnote">[180]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
877952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9879392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9880512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9881344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9882176"></a><p>
Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a
of publishing would make Eldred a felon—whether or not anyone
complained. This was a dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer
to undertake.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
724352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
883552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
constitutional
scholar whose first passion was constitutional
Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science …
by securing for limited Times to Authors … exclusive Right to
their … Writings. …
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
735168"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
894464"></a><p>
As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting
clause of Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause
granting power to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do
specific—to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote … Progress</span>»</span>—through means that
are also specific— by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e.,
copyrights) <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
740208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9741552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9742816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9744256"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
899504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9900848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9902112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9903552"></a><p>
In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of
extending existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me
about this was, if Congress has the power to extend existing terms,
Congress has the power to extend its term, then Congress can achieve
what the Constitution plainly forbids—perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the
installment plan,</span>»</span> as Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
747152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9748512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9749856"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
906448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9907808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9909088"></a><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 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9769504" class="footnote" name="idp9769504"><sup class="footnote">[181]</sup></a>
+ contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp9928736" class="footnote" name="idp9928736"><sup class="footnote">[181]</sup></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp9771504" class="footnote" name="idp9771504"><sup class="footnote">[182]</sup></a>
+than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<a href="#ftn.idp9930736" class="footnote" name="idp9930736"><sup class="footnote">[182]</sup></a>
Disney is estimated to have
contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in the
-cycle.<a href="#ftn.idp9773616" class="footnote" name="idp9773616"><sup class="footnote">[183]</sup></a>
+cycle.<a href="#ftn.idp9932848" class="footnote" name="idp9932848"><sup class="footnote">[183]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious
constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If
they could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and
again.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
778304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9779632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9780896"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
937536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9938864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9940128"></a><p>
It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court
would not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to
the Supreme Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted
activity, when considered on a national scale, affects interstate
commerce. A Constitution designed to limit Congress's power was
instead interpreted to impose no limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
786112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
945408"></a><p>
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed
that in <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The government had
argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
position to second-guess Congress.
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments,</span>»</span>
-the Chief Justice wrote.<a href="#ftn.idp9789632" class="footnote" name="idp9789632"><sup class="footnote">[184]</sup></a>
+the Chief Justice wrote.<a href="#ftn.idp9948928" class="footnote" name="idp9948928"><sup class="footnote">[184]</sup></a>
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>.<a href="#ftn.idp9792880" class="footnote" name="idp9792880"><sup class="footnote">[185]</sup></a>
+later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<a href="#ftn.idp9952176" class="footnote" name="idp9952176"><sup class="footnote">[185]</sup></a>
</p><p>
If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
-Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<a href="#ftn.idp9795120" class="footnote" name="idp9795120"><sup class="footnote">[186]</sup></a>
+Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<a href="#ftn.idp9954416" class="footnote" name="idp9954416"><sup class="footnote">[186]</sup></a>
And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should
yield the conclusion that Congress
its politics struck me as extraordinarily boring. I was not going to
devote my life to teaching constitutional law if these nine Justices
were going to be petty politicians.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
801120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9802208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9803328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9804432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
960416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9961504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9962624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9963728"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Now let's pause</strong></span> for a moment to
make sure we understand what the argument in
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop
would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a
piracy that affects us all.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
806688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
965984"></a><p>
Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief
before the Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association
-wrote that the public domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9809584" class="footnote" name="idp9809584"><sup class="footnote">[187]</sup></a>
+wrote that the public domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9968880" class="footnote" name="idp9968880"><sup class="footnote">[187]</sup></a>
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
2 percent of that 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.<a href="#ftn.idp9816128" class="footnote" name="idp9816128"><sup class="footnote">[188]</sup></a>
+extended the terms of copyright generally.<a href="#ftn.idp9975424" class="footnote" name="idp9975424"><sup class="footnote">[188]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Think practically about the consequence of this
wanted to make available to the world in your iArchive project the
remaining
9,873. What would you have to do?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
820096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
979392"></a><p>
Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were
still under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are
not on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the
digitized, and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the
consequence
for other creative works is much more dire.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
830592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9831408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9832224"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9
989968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9990784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9991600"></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
exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal of
money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
-films.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9834592" class="footnote" name="idp9834592"><sup class="footnote">[189]</sup></a>
+films.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9993968" class="footnote" name="idp9993968"><sup class="footnote">[189]</sup></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
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
-8 mm film.<a href="#ftn.idp9839904" class="footnote" name="idp9839904"><sup class="footnote">[190]</sup></a>
+8 mm film.<a href="#ftn.idp9999280" class="footnote" name="idp9999280"><sup class="footnote">[190]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most
would outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old
films, Agee argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until
the copyright expires.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9847936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10007312"></a><p>
But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will
have expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and
nitrate stock dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal
role is to archive culture, whether there's a demand for any
particular bit of that culture or not—then we can't count on the
commercial market to do our library work for us.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9866288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10025776"></a><p>
I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We
should rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable
culture. My message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the
culture, 94 percent of the films, books, and music produced between
1923 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.<a href="#ftn.idp9868768" class="footnote" name="idp9868768"><sup class="footnote">[191]</sup></a>
+to provide that value.<a href="#ftn.idp10028256" class="footnote" name="idp10028256"><sup class="footnote">[191]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit
hear the case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for
important cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a
whole, where the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9877216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10036704"></a><p>
The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.
This time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
been won. It should have been won. And no matter how hard I try to
retell this story to myself, I can never escape believing that my own
mistake lost it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9882976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10042128"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>The mistake</strong></span> was made early, though
it became obvious only at the very end. Our case had been supported
from the very beginning by an extraordinary lawyer, Geoffrey Stewart,
from its copyright-protectionist clients for supporting us. They
ignored this pressure (something that few law firms today would ever
do), and throughout the case, they gave it everything they could.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9885696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9886480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9887296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10044848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10045632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10046448"></a><p>
There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff
Stewart was the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became
quite involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view
the widest range of credible critics—credible not because they
were rich and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated
that this law was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9896416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9897200"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10055184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10055968"></a><p>
The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's
organization, Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the
very beginning. Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by
existing copyrights, there is no limit to Congress's power to set
terms. That strong conservative argument persuaded a strong
conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9900416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9901248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9902064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9902880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10059184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10060016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10060832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10061648"></a><p>
In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as
it gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9905040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9905840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10063808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10064608"></a><p>
Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal
argument, there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and
archives, including the Internet Archive, the American Association of
Law Libraries, and the National Writers Union.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9907312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10066080"></a><p>
But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the
argument I've already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued
that unless the law was struck, a whole generation of American film
would disappear. The other made the economic argument absolutely
clear.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9908800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9909616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9910432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9911248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9912064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10067568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10068384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10069200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10070016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10070832"></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
anything to increase incentives to create. Such extensions were
nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>—the fancy term economists use
to describe special-interest legislation gone wild.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9914208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9914992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9915808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9916624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10072976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10073760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10074576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10075392"></a><p>
The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered
to write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with
us from the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we
who had advised us early on about a First Amendment strategy; and
finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9918832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9919616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9920736"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10077600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10078384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10079504"></a><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 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried
that the copyright holders would defend the idea that they should
continue to have the right to control who did what with content they
wanted to control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9924256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9925648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9926464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10083024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10084416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10085232"></a><p>
Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was
better for the Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to
Dr. Seuss's work— better than allowing it to fall into the
public domain—because if this creativity were in the public
domain, then people could use it to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create
-pornography.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9928208" class="footnote" name="idp9928208"><sup class="footnote">[192]</sup></a>
+pornography.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp10086976" class="footnote" name="idp10086976"><sup class="footnote">[192]</sup></a>
That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example,
to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African
-Americans in the cast.<a href="#ftn.idp9931024" class="footnote" name="idp9931024"><sup class="footnote">[193]</sup></a>
+Americans in the cast.<a href="#ftn.idp10089792" class="footnote" name="idp10089792"><sup class="footnote">[193]</sup></a>
That's
their view of how this part of American culture should be controlled,
<span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there
was little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said,
I set the strategy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9936816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9937632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10095584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10096400"></a><p>
The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we
called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest.</span>»</span> The
Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor,
five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line
of cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to
assure that Congress's powers had limits.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9940592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10099360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
Congress's power. These four—Justice Stevens, Justice Souter,
Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer—had repeatedly argued that
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="idp
9945888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10104656"></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 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly
believed, there was a very important free speech argument against
these retrospective extensions.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9947328"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10106096"></a><p>
The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest
judges on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just
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="idp
9960672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9961488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9962304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10119440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10120256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10121072"></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
consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see
the harm—passionately get them to see the harm. For if they
don't see that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9965024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10123792"></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 thing—not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
where I intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's
power. This was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether
those enumerated powers had any limit.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9970256"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10129024"></a><p>
Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.
The history was bothering her.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
assertion about 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="idp
9978112"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10136880"></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
but for a statute that cannot be justified under ordinary First
Amendment analysis or under a proper reading of the limits built
into the Copyright Clause.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9983088"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10141856"></a><p>
Things went better for us when the government gave its argument;
for now the Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia
asked Solicitor General Olson,
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case was not even
cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did not
even appear in the Court's opinion.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9994112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10152880"></a><p>
Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.
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="idp
9996176"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10154944"></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
very same words in the Progress 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="idp10
000768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
160080"></a><p>
Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever
written, was external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of
it is a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger
came quickly, but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two
sorts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
006912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
166224"></a><p>
It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have been
one thing for them to have explained why the principle of <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't
apply in this case. That wouldn't have been a very convincing
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="idp10
013360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
172672"></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
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="idp10
017488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10018272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
176192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10176976"></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?
little reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had
stepped down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could
have persuaded.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
021024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
179728"></a><p>
And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this
my view of the case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced in
<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figure 13.1, “Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon”</a>. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10029232"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="95%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/tom-the-dancing-bug.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></td></tr></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
032672"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10187936"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="95%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/tom-the-dancing-bug.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></td></tr></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
191376"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the
quote from <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand experiment</span>»</span> we call the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey,
in our 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 style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9690864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9690864" class="para"><sup class="para">[179] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9850192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9850192" class="para"><sup class="para">[179] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9691600"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9850928"></a>
There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to
describe, but it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet
created was a world of noncommercial pornographers—people who
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 id="ftn.idp9715296" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9715296" class="para"><sup class="para">[180] </sup></a>
+protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9874496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9874496" class="para"><sup class="para">[180] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9716000"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9716784"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9875200"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9875984"></a>
The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change
would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to
you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last
forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next
Congress,</span>»</span> 144 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9769504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9769504" class="para"><sup class="para">[181] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9928736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9928736" class="para"><sup class="para">[181] </sup></a>
Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9771504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9771504" class="para"><sup class="para">[182] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9930736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9930736" class="para"><sup class="para">[182] </sup></a>
See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
Age,</span>»</span> available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9773616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9773616" class="para"><sup class="para">[183] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9932848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9932848" class="para"><sup class="para">[183] </sup></a>
Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9789632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9789632" class="para"><sup class="para">[184] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9948928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9948928" class="para"><sup class="para">[184] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9792880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9792880" class="para"><sup class="para">[185] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9952176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9952176" class="para"><sup class="para">[185] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9795120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9795120" class="para"><sup class="para">[186] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9954416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9954416" class="para"><sup class="para">[186] </sup></a>
If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle
carries from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in
Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's interpretation would
allow the government unending power to regulate copyrights—the
limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span> notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9809584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9809584" class="para"><sup class="para">[187] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9968880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9968880" class="para"><sup class="para">[187] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp9816128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9816128" class="para"><sup class="para">[188] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9975424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9975424" class="para"><sup class="para">[188] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp9834592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9834592" class="para"><sup class="para">[189] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9993968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9993968" class="para"><sup class="para">[189] </sup></a>
See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies,
Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Striking
Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9839904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9839904" class="para"><sup class="para">[190] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9999280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9999280" class="para"><sup class="para">[190] </sup></a>
Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae
Supporting the Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537
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 id="ftn.idp9868768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9868768" class="para"><sup class="para">[191] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10028256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10028256" class="para"><sup class="para">[191] </sup></a>
Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>»</span> 20
December 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9928208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9928208" class="para"><sup class="para">[192] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10086976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10086976" class="para"><sup class="para">[192] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp9931024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9931024" class="para"><sup class="para">[193] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10089792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10089792" class="para"><sup class="para">[193] </sup></a>
Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey
Mouse Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March 1998, B7.
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="idp10
040432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
199200"></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
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="idp10
046240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
205008"></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,
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="idp10
049088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10049904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
207856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10208672"></a><p>
As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. CHAPTER TEN: «Property»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were
removed in 1976, when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning
-any formal requirement before a copyright is granted.<a href="#ftn.idp10052464" class="footnote" name="idp10052464"><sup class="footnote">[194]</sup></a>
+any formal requirement before a copyright is granted.<a href="#ftn.idp10211232" class="footnote" name="idp10211232"><sup class="footnote">[194]</sup></a>
The Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span> Natural
rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American
tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if their
a world without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to
know what's protected and what's not.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
058592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
217360"></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
a world without formalities. Complex, expensive,
<span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions take their place.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10068592"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10226880"></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
upon historical data, that 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="idp10
076640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
234928"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>When Steve Forbes</strong></span> endorsed the
idea, some in Washington began to pay attention. Many people contacted
me pointing to representatives who might be willing to introduce the
Eldred Act. And I had a few who directly suggested that they might be
willing to take the first step.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
078800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
237088"></a><p>
One representative, Zoe Lofgren of California, went so far as to get
the bill drafted. The draft solved any problem with international
law. It imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners
possible still to understand why the law favors Hollywood: Most people
don't recognize the reasons for limiting copyright terms; it is thus
still possible to see good faith within the resistance.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
089264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
247552"></a><p>
But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred
Act, then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked
selfinterest driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary
feared the 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="idp10
096256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10097040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
254544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10255328"></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
society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10052464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10052464" class="para"><sup class="para">[194] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10211232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10211232" class="para"><sup class="para">[194] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10053168"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10211936"></a>
Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of
African nation can afford the drugs for the vast majority of its
population:
$15,000 is thirty times the per capita gross national product of
-Zimbabwe. At these prices, the drugs are totally unavailable.<a href="#ftn.idp10114672" class="footnote" name="idp10114672"><sup class="footnote">[195]</sup></a>
+Zimbabwe. At these prices, the drugs are totally unavailable.<a href="#ftn.idp10273504" class="footnote" name="idp10273504"><sup class="footnote">[195]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsonpharmaceuticals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpharmaceuticalpatents"></a><p>
These prices are not high because the ingredients of the drugs are
example, if the drug was sold in India, it could be imported into
Africa from India. This is called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>»</span> and it is
generally permitted under international trade law and is specifically
-permitted within the European Union.<a href="#ftn.idp10129024" class="footnote" name="idp10129024"><sup class="footnote">[196]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
132304"></a><p>
+permitted within the European Union.<a href="#ftn.idp10288064" class="footnote" name="idp10288064"><sup class="footnote">[196]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
291344"></a><p>
However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more
than opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
characterized it, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa …
not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel
-imports.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9738560" class="footnote" name="idp9738560"><sup class="footnote">[197]</sup></a>
+imports.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9897856" class="footnote" name="idp9897856"><sup class="footnote">[197]</sup></a>
Through the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the
government asked South Africa to change the law—and to add
pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed South Africa for
patent— pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these governments,
with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa respect
these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any
-effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<a href="#ftn.idp10136160" class="footnote" name="idp10136160"><sup class="footnote">[198]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
139280"></a><p>
+effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<a href="#ftn.idp10295200" class="footnote" name="idp10295200"><sup class="footnote">[198]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
298320"></a><p>
We should place the intervention by the United States in context. No
doubt patents are not the most important reason that Africans don't
have access to drugs. Poverty and the total absence of an effective
information, which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an
argument
-about the sanctity of property.<a href="#ftn.idp10143920" class="footnote" name="idp10143920"><sup class="footnote">[199]</sup></a>
+about the sanctity of property.<a href="#ftn.idp10302960" class="footnote" name="idp10302960"><sup class="footnote">[199]</sup></a>
It was because <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> would be violated that these
drugs should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the
importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> that led these government actors
to intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
151232"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
310272"></a><p>
Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years
from now when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have
let this happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose
unintended consequence that perhaps millions die. And that rational
strategy thus becomes framed in terms of this ideal—the sanctity of an
idea called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
162208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10163456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10164656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10165968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10167408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10168656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10169968"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
321296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10322544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10323808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10325056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10326496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10327744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10328992"></a><p>
So when the common sense of your child confronts you, what will
you say? When the common sense of a generation finally revolts
against what we have done, how will we justify what we have done?
in any case. A sensible policy, in other words, could be a balanced
policy. For most of our history, both copyright and patent policies
were balanced in just this sense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
173040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10174384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10175664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
332064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10333344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10334688"></a><p>
But we as a culture have lost this sense of balance. We have lost the
critical eye that helps us see the difference between truth and
extremism. A certain property fundamentalism, having no connection to
our tradition, now reigns in this culture—bizarrely, and with
consequences more grave to the spread of ideas and culture than almost
any other single policy decision that we as a democracy will make.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
177120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
336208"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>A simple idea</strong></span> blinds us, and under
the cover of darkness, much happens that most of us would reject if
any of us looked. So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in
hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even
noticed. Powerful lobbies, complex issues, and MTV attention spans
produce the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfect storm</span>»</span> for free culture.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
183632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10184448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10187168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10188272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10189104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10189936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10190768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10191872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10192704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10195120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10195936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10196768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
342704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10343520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10346336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10347440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10348272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10349104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10349936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10351040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10351872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10354288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10355104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10355936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>In August 2003</strong></span>, a fight broke out
in the United States about a decision by the World Intellectual
-Property Organization to cancel a meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp10200240" class="footnote" name="idp10200240"><sup class="footnote">[200]</sup></a>
+Property Organization to cancel a meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp10359360" class="footnote" name="idp10359360"><sup class="footnote">[200]</sup></a>
At the request of a wide range of interests, WIPO had decided to hold
a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
goods.</span>»</span> These are projects that have been successful in producing
Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It
included the Global Positioning System, which Ronald Reagan set free
in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and free software.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
209440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
368560"></a><p>
The aim of the meeting was to consider this wide range of projects
from one common perspective: that none of these projects relied upon
intellectual property extremism. Instead, in all of them, intellectual
property was balanced by agreements to keep access open or to impose
limitations on the way in which proprietary claims might be used.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceininternationaldebateonintellectualproperty"></a><p>
-From the perspective of this book, then, the conference was ideal.<a href="#ftn.idp10213776" class="footnote" name="idp10213776"><sup class="footnote">[201]</sup></a>
+From the perspective of this book, then, the conference was ideal.<a href="#ftn.idp10372784" class="footnote" name="idp10372784"><sup class="footnote">[201]</sup></a>
The projects within its scope included both commercial and
noncommercial work. They primarily involved science, but from many
perspectives. And WIPO was an ideal venue for this discussion, since
had thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and should. And
thus the meeting about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create
public goods</span>»</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
221200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10222656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10224096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10226976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
379344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10380800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10382176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10385168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
But there is one project within that list that is highly
controversial, at least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source
and free software.</span>»</span> Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of
Microsoft's software. And internationally, many governments have begun
to explore requirements that they use open source or free software,
rather than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>»</span> for their own internal uses.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
231408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10232512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10233344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10234160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
389600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10390704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10391536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10392352"></a><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
is emphatically a commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and
free software</span>»</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead,
to support a mode of software development that is different from
-Microsoft's.<a href="#ftn.idp10236608" class="footnote" name="idp10236608"><sup class="footnote">[202]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
242336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10243824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10244656"></a><p>
+Microsoft's.<a href="#ftn.idp10394800" class="footnote" name="idp10394800"><sup class="footnote">[202]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
400528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10402016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10402848"></a><p>
More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">open source and free
software</span>»</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Open source and free software</span>»</span>
is not software in the public domain. Instead, like Microsoft's
software. If copyright did not govern software, then free software
could not impose the same kind of requirements on its adopters. It
thus depends upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
253008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
411264"></a><p>
It is therefore understandable that as a proprietary software
developer, Microsoft would oppose this WIPO meeting, and
understandable that it would use its lobbyists to get the United
States government to oppose it, as well. And indeed, that is just what
was reported to have happened. According to Jonathan Krim of the
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, Microsoft's lobbyists succeeded in getting the United
-States government to veto the meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp10255232" class="footnote" name="idp10255232"><sup class="footnote">[203]</sup></a>
+States government to veto the meeting.<a href="#ftn.idp10413488" class="footnote" name="idp10413488"><sup class="footnote">[203]</sup></a>
And without U.S. backing, the meeting was canceled.
</p><p>
I don't blame Microsoft for doing what it can to advance its own
its lobbying here, and nothing terribly surprising about the most
powerful software producer in the United States having succeeded in
its lobbying efforts.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
258208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10259536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
416464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10417792"></a><p>
What was surprising was the United States government's reason for
opposing the meeting. Again, as reported by Krim, Lois Boland, acting
director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark
She is quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose
to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the
goals of WIPO.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
262016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
420272"></a><p>
These statements are astonishing on a number of levels.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
263712"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
421904"></a><p>
First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and
free software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property
right called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span>. Without it, restrictions imposed by those
in understanding—the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
first-year law student, but an embarrassment from a high government
official dealing with intellectual property issues.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
267328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10268032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10269136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10269952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
425520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10426224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10427328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10428144"></a><p>
Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote</span>»</span>
intellectual property maximally? As I had been scolded at the
preparatory conference of WSIS, WIPO is to consider not only how best
based on drugs whose patent has expired) contrary to the WIPO mission?
Does the public domain weaken intellectual property? Would it have
been better if the protocols of the Internet had been patented?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
272608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
430800"></a><p>
Third, even if one believed that the purpose of WIPO was to maximize
intellectual property rights, in our tradition, intellectual property
rights are held by individuals and corporations. They get to decide
control to the free market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control
and concentration. It fought any freedom that might interfere with
that control.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
285184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10286000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
443392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10444208"></a><p>
As Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite relate, this is precisely the
-choice we are now making about intellectual property.<a href="#ftn.idp10287216" class="footnote" name="idp10287216"><sup class="footnote">[204]</sup></a>
+choice we are now making about intellectual property.<a href="#ftn.idp10445424" class="footnote" name="idp10445424"><sup class="footnote">[204]</sup></a>
We will have an information society. That much is certain. Our only
choice now is whether that information society will be
<span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span> or <span class="emphasis"><em>feudal</em></span>. The trend is
toward the feudal.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
290496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10291808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
448704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10450016"></a><p>
When this battle broke, I blogged it. A spirited debate within the
comment section ensued. Ms. Boland had a number of supporters who
tried to show why her comments made sense. But there was one comment
that was particularly depressing for me. An anonymous poster wrote,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
294128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10295568"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
452336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10453776"></a><p>
George, you misunderstand Lessig: He's only talking about the world as
it should be (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government,
should be to promote the right balance of intellectual property rights,
mistake. I have no illusion about the extremism of our government,
whether Republican or Democrat. My only illusion apparently is about
whether our government should speak the truth or not.)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
299728"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
457936"></a><p>
Obviously, however, the poster was not supporting that idea. Instead,
the poster was ridiculing the very idea that in the real world, the
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">goal</span>»</span> of a government should be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to promote the right balance</span>»</span> of
been part of our tradition for most of our history—free culture.
</p><p>
If this is crazy, then let there be more crazies. Soon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
306816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10307488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10308304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
465024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10465696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10466400"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>There are moments</strong></span> of hope in this
struggle. And moments that surprise. When the FCC was considering
relaxing ownership rules, which would thereby further increase the
</p><p>
If we were Achilles, this would be our heel. This would be the place
of our tragedy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
317232"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
475408"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>As I write</strong></span> these final words, the
news is filled with stories about the RIAA lawsuits against almost
-three hundred individuals.<a href="#ftn.idp10319120" class="footnote" name="idp10319120"><sup class="footnote">[205]</sup></a>
+three hundred individuals.<a href="#ftn.idp10477312" class="footnote" name="idp10477312"><sup class="footnote">[205]</sup></a>
Eminem has just been sued for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> someone else's
-music.<a href="#ftn.idp10326432" class="footnote" name="idp10326432"><sup class="footnote">[206]</sup></a>
+music.<a href="#ftn.idp10484624" class="footnote" name="idp10484624"><sup class="footnote">[206]</sup></a>
The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from a Japanese author has just
-finished making the rounds.<a href="#ftn.idp10329056" class="footnote" name="idp10329056"><sup class="footnote">[207]</sup></a>
+finished making the rounds.<a href="#ftn.idp10487248" class="footnote" name="idp10487248"><sup class="footnote">[207]</sup></a>
An insider from Hollywood—who insists he must remain
anonymous—reports <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use
talking about deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers
thought to violate the law. Universities are threatening expulsion for
kids who use a computer to share content.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
332672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10333456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10334272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10335056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10335872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10336688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10337504"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
490864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10491648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10492464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10493248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10494064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10494880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10495696"></a><p>
Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced
that it will build a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>»</span> from which British citizens can
-download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<a href="#ftn.idp10339360" class="footnote" name="idp10339360"><sup class="footnote">[208]</sup></a>
+download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<a href="#ftn.idp10497552" class="footnote" name="idp10497552"><sup class="footnote">[208]</sup></a>
And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil, himself a folk hero
of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to release
content and free licenses in that Latin American
-country.<a href="#ftn.idp10341616" class="footnote" name="idp10341616"><sup class="footnote">[209]</sup></a>
+country.<a href="#ftn.idp10499808" class="footnote" name="idp10499808"><sup class="footnote">[209]</sup></a>
I've told a dark story. The truth is more mixed. A technology has
given us a new freedom. Slowly, some begin to understand that this
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10114672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10114672" class="para"><sup class="para">[195] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10273504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10273504" class="para"><sup class="para">[195] </sup></a>
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
available at
release
issued 9 July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in
the developing world receive them—and half of them are in Brazil.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10129024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10129024" class="para"><sup class="para">[196] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10288064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10288064" class="para"><sup class="para">[196] </sup></a>
See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism: Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003), 37.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10130448"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10131232"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9738560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9738560" class="para"><sup class="para">[197] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10289488"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10290272"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9897856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9897856" class="para"><sup class="para">[197] </sup></a>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan
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 id="ftn.idp10136160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10136160" class="para"><sup class="para">[198] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10295200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10295200" class="para"><sup class="para">[198] </sup></a>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan
Africa, a Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property
-Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp10143920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10143920" class="para"><sup class="para">[199] </sup></a>
+Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp10302960" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10302960" class="para"><sup class="para">[199] </sup></a>
See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10200240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10200240" class="para"><sup class="para">[200] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10359360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10359360" class="para"><sup class="para">[200] </sup></a>
Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>,
August 2003, E1, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's
Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO,</span>»</span> <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 id="ftn.idp10213776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10213776" class="para"><sup class="para">[201] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10372784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10372784" class="para"><sup class="para">[201] </sup></a>
I should disclose that I was one of the people who asked WIPO for the
meeting.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10236608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10236608" class="para"><sup class="para">[202] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10394800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10394800" class="para"><sup class="para">[202] </sup></a>
Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
sophisticated. As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with
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 id="ftn.idp10255232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10255232" class="para"><sup class="para">[203] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10413488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10413488" class="para"><sup class="para">[203] </sup></a>
Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10287216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10287216" class="para"><sup class="para">[204] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10445424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10445424" class="para"><sup class="para">[204] </sup></a>
See Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>, 210–20.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10136288"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10319120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10319120" class="para"><sup class="para">[205] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10295328"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10477312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10477312" class="para"><sup class="para">[205] </sup></a>
John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>»</span> CNET News.com, September
2003, available at
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>»</span> <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 id="ftn.idp10326432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10326432" class="para"><sup class="para">[206] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10484624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10484624" class="para"><sup class="para">[206] </sup></a>
Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old Lady,</span>»</span>
mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10329056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10329056" class="para"><sup class="para">[207] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10487248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10487248" class="para"><sup class="para">[207] </sup></a>
Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
Dylan Songs,</span>»</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10339360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10339360" class="para"><sup class="para">[208] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10497552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10497552" class="para"><sup class="para">[208] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>»</span> BBC press release,
24 August 2003, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10341616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10341616" class="para"><sup class="para">[209] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10499808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10499808" class="para"><sup class="para">[209] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>»</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6 August 2003,
available at
content requires permission. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> world that defines
the Internet today will become a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span>
world that is a creator's nightmare.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
365184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10366576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
523376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10524768"></a><p>
What's needed is a way to say something in the middle—neither
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights
reserved</span>»</span>— and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable
(there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in many
places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
382208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
540400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></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
and the function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the
data than not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
protected by the friction disappears, too.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
386672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
544848"></a><p>
Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry
about libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that
people should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
you. If it becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in
electronic spaces, then the friction-induced privacy of yesterday
disappears.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
389056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10390368"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
547232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10548544"></a><p>
It is this reality that explains the push of many to define <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
on the Internet. It is the recognition that technology can remove what
friction before gave us that leads many to push for laws to do what
-friction did.<a href="#ftn.idp10392608" class="footnote" name="idp10392608"><sup class="footnote">[210]</sup></a>
+friction did.<a href="#ftn.idp10550784" class="footnote" name="idp10550784"><sup class="footnote">[210]</sup></a>
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 affirmatively
act where, before, privacy was given by default.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
396624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10397840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10399168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10399984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
554800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10556016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10557408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10558224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
movement. When computers with software were first made available
commercially, the software—both the source code and the
economics of computing. And as he believed, if he did nothing about
it, then the freedom to change and share software would be
fundamentally weakened.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
409984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10411216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
568112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10569344"></a><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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>
kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating system.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10413008"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10413840"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10571136"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10571968"></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
that bind copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a
space where free software would survive. He was actively protecting
what before had been passively guaranteed.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
416512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10417904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
574640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10576032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates
with the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and
scientific journals are produced.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
426256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10427360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
584448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10585552"></a><p>
As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them
to libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
to charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme
Court opinion through their respective services.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
430016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
588208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive
for people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.
to flourish. And if there's nothing wrong with selling the public
domain, then there could be nothing wrong, in principle, with selling
access to material that is not in the public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
434384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10435632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
592160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10593408"></a><p>
But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data
was through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to
browse this data except by paying for a subscription?
public libraries begin to disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with
software, a changing technology and market shrink a freedom taken for
granted before.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
441280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10442080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
598992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10599792"></a><p>
This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to
restore the freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science
(PLoS), for example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
444304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
602016"></a><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 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional
distribution of content. But competition in our tradition is
presumptively a good—especially when it helps spread knowledge
and science.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
445840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10447824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10449072"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
603552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10605472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10606720"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
The same strategy could be applied to culture, as a response to the
increasing control effected through law and technology.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
453776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
611136"></a><p>
Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit
corporation established in Massachusetts, but with its home at
Stanford University. Its aim is to build a layer of
upon. Voluntary choice of individuals and creators will make this
content available. And that content will in turn enable us to rebuild
a public domain.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
461248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
618608"></a><p>
This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And
of course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from
of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)
who help build the public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the
importance of the public domain to other creativity.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
463776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
621072"></a><p>
The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The aim is to
complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture
are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
conclusion. The book's first printing was exhausted months before the
publisher had expected. This first novel of a science fiction author
was a total success.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
471136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10471952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
628384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10629200"></a><p>
The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content
was confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner,
used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as
well.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
474400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10475712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10476528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10477344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
631648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10632960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10633776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10634592"></a><p>
These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the
Commons. There are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other
Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span>
Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so
-high<a href="#ftn.idp10480560" class="footnote" name="idp10480560"><sup class="footnote">[211]</sup></a>),
+high<a href="#ftn.idp10637808" class="footnote" name="idp10637808"><sup class="footnote">[211]</sup></a>),
these artists release into the creative environment content
that others can build upon, so that their form of creativity might grow.
</p><p>
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="idp10
487536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10488944"></a></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. THEM, SOON</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
644784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10646128"></a></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. THEM, SOON</h2></div></div></div><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> 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
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<a href="#ftn.idp10501568" class="footnote" name="idp10501568"><sup class="footnote">[212]</sup></a>—but it
+The law should therefore change this requirement<a href="#ftn.idp10658704" class="footnote" name="idp10658704"><sup class="footnote">[212]</sup></a>—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.
failure need 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.<a href="#ftn.idp10512880" class="footnote" name="idp10512880"><sup class="footnote">[213]</sup></a>
+doesn't give permission.<a href="#ftn.idp10670016" class="footnote" name="idp10670016"><sup class="footnote">[213]</sup></a>
The meaning of an unmarked work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone
complains.</span>»</span> If someone does complain, then the obligation would be to
stop using the work in any new
evolve. The best way to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the
Copyright Office's role to that of approving standards for marking
content that have been crafted elsewhere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
516864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
674000"></a><p>
For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The
Copyright Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could
five years. That seemed radical enough at the time. But 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.<a href="#ftn.idp10526416" class="footnote" name="idp10526416"><sup class="footnote">[214]</sup></a>
+copyright term.<a href="#ftn.idp10683216" class="footnote" name="idp10683216"><sup class="footnote">[214]</sup></a>
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
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone</span>»</span> makes the complexities of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> and
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>»</span> less necessary to navigate.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
537296"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
694096"></a><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be
renewed. Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner
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.<a href="#ftn.idp10539456" class="footnote" name="idp10539456"><sup class="footnote">[215]</sup></a>
+pension.<a href="#ftn.idp10696256" class="footnote" name="idp10696256"><sup class="footnote">[215]</sup></a>
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.
call them <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extremists.</span>»</span>) But again, the term I recommended was longer
than the term under Richard Nixon. How <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radical</span>»</span> can it be to ask for
a more generous copyright law than Richard Nixon presided over?
-</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
549104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10549904"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
705904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10706704"></a><p>
As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally
granted property owners the right to control their property from the
ground to the heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property
work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even
though that movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
554288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
711088"></a><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.<a href="#ftn.idp10555552" class="footnote" name="idp10555552"><sup class="footnote">[216]</sup></a>
+control translations and dramatizations of a work.<a href="#ftn.idp10712352" class="footnote" name="idp10712352"><sup class="footnote">[216]</sup></a>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp10558000" class="footnote" name="idp10558000"><sup class="footnote">[217]</sup></a>
+yet intoning the abracadabra of idea and expression.<a href="#ftn.idp10714800" class="footnote" name="idp10714800"><sup class="footnote">[217]</sup></a>
</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
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="idp10561312"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10718112"></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
technologies enable; now imagine pouring molasses into the
machines. That's what this general requirement of permission does to
the creative process. Smothers it.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
564144"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
720944"></a><p>
This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the
Clint Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for
foreseeable derivative rights—turning a book into a movie, or a
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.<a href="#ftn.idp10566272" class="footnote" name="idp10566272"><sup class="footnote">[218]</sup></a>
+Paul Goldstein.<a href="#ftn.idp10723072" class="footnote" name="idp10723072"><sup class="footnote">[218]</sup></a>
His view is that the law should be written so that
expanded protections follow expanded uses.
</p><p>
There are many who are using file-sharing networks to get access to
content that is not copyrighted or to get access that the copyright
owner plainly endorses.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
581264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10582336"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
738128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10739200"></a><p>
Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It
must avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The
eagerness with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover,
Rockies—you can instantaneously be connected to the
Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone
service, where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
587904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
744768"></a><p>
In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that
give you access to content on the fly—such as Internet radio,
content that is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here,
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the
-form of MP3s across the Web.<a href="#ftn.idp10592416" class="footnote" name="idp10592416"><sup class="footnote">[219]</sup></a>
+form of MP3s across the Web.<a href="#ftn.idp10749280" class="footnote" name="idp10749280"><sup class="footnote">[219]</sup></a>
</p><p>
This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
unavailable because the work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the
law should be to facilitate the access to this content, ideally in a
way that returns something to the artist.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
600032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10601136"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
756896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10758000"></a><p>
Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of
print, it may still be available in libraries and used book
stores. But libraries and used book stores don't pay the copyright
way to compensate those who are harmed.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpromisestokeepfisher"></a><p>
The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been
-floated by Harvard law professor William Fisher.<a href="#ftn.idp10612256" class="footnote" name="idp10612256"><sup class="footnote">[220]</sup></a>
+floated by Harvard law professor William Fisher.<a href="#ftn.idp10769120" class="footnote" name="idp10769120"><sup class="footnote">[220]</sup></a>
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
system, then it can be continued. If this form of protection is no
longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the old system of
controlling access.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
633376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10634688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
790176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10791488"></a><p>
Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim
is not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that
the system supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span>
uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was
allowed to do with the content itself.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
637488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10638272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10639088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10639904"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
794288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10795072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10795888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10796704"></a><p>
No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation
would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating innovation. This
Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no doubt
there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
on-line.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
643056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10643872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10644976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10645808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10646912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
799856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10800672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10801776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10802608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10803712"></a><p>
This competition has already occurred against the background of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span>
music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable television have known
for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for much more than
client. And in a world where the rich clients have one strong view,
the unwillingness of the profession to question or counter that one
strong view queers the law.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
664624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10665440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
821472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10822288"></a><p>
The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radical</span>»</span> by many within the profession, yet the positions that I am
advocating are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate
law. Many, for example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to
the Copyright Term Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the
dominant scholar and practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville
-Nimmer, thought it obvious.<a href="#ftn.idp10667776" class="footnote" name="idp10667776"><sup class="footnote">[221]</sup></a>
+Nimmer, thought it obvious.<a href="#ftn.idp10824624" class="footnote" name="idp10824624"><sup class="footnote">[221]</sup></a>
</p><p>
However, my criticism of the role that lawyers have played in this
Economists are supposed to be good at reckoning costs and benefits.
But more often than not, economists, with no clue about how the legal
system actually functions, simply assume that the transaction costs of
-the legal system are slight.<a href="#ftn.idp10670896" class="footnote" name="idp10670896"><sup class="footnote">[222]</sup></a>
+the legal system are slight.<a href="#ftn.idp10827744" class="footnote" name="idp10827744"><sup class="footnote">[222]</sup></a>
They see a system that has been around for hundreds of years, and they
assume it works the way their elementary school civics class taught
them it works.
away from areas that we know it will only harm. And that is precisely
what the law will too often do if too much of our culture is left to
its review.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
679248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
836096"></a><p>
Think about the amazing things your kid could do or make with digital
technology—the film, the music, the Web page, the blog. Or think
about the amazing things your community could facilitate with digital
We should ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why?</span>»</span> Show me why your regulation of culture is
needed. Show me how it does good. And until you can show me both,
keep your lawyers away.
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10392608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10392608" class="para"><sup class="para">[210] </sup></a>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10550784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10550784" class="para"><sup class="para">[210] </sup></a>
See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
(describing 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 id="ftn.idp10480560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10480560" class="para"><sup class="para">[211] </sup></a>
+between technology and privacy).</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10637808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10637808" class="para"><sup class="para">[211] </sup></a>
<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 id="ftn.idp10501568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10501568" class="para"><sup class="para">[212] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10658704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10658704" class="para"><sup class="para">[212] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp10512880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10512880" class="para"><sup class="para">[213] </sup></a>
+adopted by other countries as well.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10670016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10670016" class="para"><sup class="para">[213] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp10526416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10526416" class="para"><sup class="para">[214] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10683216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10683216" class="para"><sup class="para">[214] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308 (25 January 2003): 15,
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10539456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10539456" class="para"><sup class="para">[215] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10696256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10696256" class="para"><sup class="para">[215] </sup></a>
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001),
available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10555552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10555552" class="para"><sup class="para">[216] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10712352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10712352" class="para"><sup class="para">[216] </sup></a>
Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1967), 32.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10558000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10558000" class="para"><sup class="para">[217] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10714800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10714800" class="para"><sup class="para">[217] </sup></a>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10566272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10566272" class="para"><sup class="para">[218] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10723072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10723072" class="para"><sup class="para">[218] </sup></a>
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="idp10394304"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10592416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10592416" class="para"><sup class="para">[219] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10552480"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10749280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10749280" class="para"><sup class="para">[219] </sup></a>
See, for example, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>»</span> The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3
April 2002, available at
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10612256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10612256" class="para"><sup class="para">[220] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10769120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10769120" class="para"><sup class="para">[220] </sup></a>
<a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a>
William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (last
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="idp10627136"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10627952"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10628768"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10629600"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10667776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10667776" class="para"><sup class="para">[221] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10783936"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10784752"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10785568"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10786400"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10824624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10824624" class="para"><sup class="para">[221] </sup></a>
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville B. Nimmer
Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48 (2001): 1057, 1069–70.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10670896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10670896" class="para"><sup class="para">[222] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10827744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10827744" class="para"><sup class="para">[222] </sup></a>
A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is
to be commended for his careful review of data about infringement,
effect of file-sharing technology. In my view, however, he
underestimates the costs of the legal system. See, for example,
<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10669456"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp10826304"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Chapter 17. NOTES</h1></div></div></div><p>
Throughout this text, there are references to links on the World Wide
Web. As anyone who has tried to use the Web knows, these links can be
began when I read of Eric Eldred's war to keep books free. Eldred's
work helped launch a movement, the free culture movement, and it is
to him that this book is dedicated.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
689936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10
846688"></a><p>
I received guidance in various places from friends and academics,
including Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner,
Mark Rose, and Kathleen Sullivan. And I received correction and
insisted that there would be unending happiness away from these
battles, and who has always been right. This slow learner is, as ever,
grateful for her perpetual patience and love.
-</p></div><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp10
697424"></a>Index</h1></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <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="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: 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>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable 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>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">MARKING</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>copyright</dt><dd><dl><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property</dt><dd><dl><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity</dt><dd><dl><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">CHAPTER FOUR: «Pirates»</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">US, NOW</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">US, NOW</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">US, NOW</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">US, NOW</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7899328">«PROPERTY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</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. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: 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">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</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>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">CHAPTER FOUR: «Pirates»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp7899328">«PROPERTY»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <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="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: 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>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6952048">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div><div class="colophon"><h1 class="title"><a name="idp10697680"></a>Colophon</h1><p>
+</p></div><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp10
854176"></a>Index</h1></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>academic journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>AIDS medications, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>air traffic, land ownership vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>animated cartoons, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>architecture, constraint effected through, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internet Archive)</dt></dl></dd><dt>archives, digital, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aristotle, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>art, underground, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>artists</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>recording industry payments to, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <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="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>Asia, commercial piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Berne Convention (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: 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>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>blogs (Web-logs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>books</dt><dd><dl><dt>English copyright law developed for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>free on-line releases of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>three types of uses of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>total number of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>booksellers, English, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>bots, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Brazil, free culture in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>British Parliament, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>broadcast flag, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable 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>cable television, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>camera technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>cars, MP3 sound systems in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>cartoon films, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>cassette recording, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMs, film clips used in, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>CDs</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">MARKING</a></dt><dt>foreign piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>prices of, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>sales levels of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cell phones, music streamed over, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>comics, Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Commerce, U.S. Department of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>commercials, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>common law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>composer's rights vs. producers' rights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>composers, copyright protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>compulsory license, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>computer games, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Congress, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional powers of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright terms extended by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in constitutional Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>on copyright laws, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on VCR technology, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Constitution, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>Commerce Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>First Amendment to, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>on creative property, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>structural checks and balances of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>copyright</dt><dd><dl><dt>as narrow monopoly right, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>duration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>four regulatory modalities on, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>in perpetuity, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>marking of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>of natural authors vs. corporations, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>renewability of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>usage restrictions attached to, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Copyright Act (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>against student file sharing, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>commercial creativity as primary purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>distribution technology targeted in, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>exaggerated claims of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>in recording industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>individual defendants intimidated by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory damages of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>willful infringement findings in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>copyright law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as ex post regulation modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>as protection of creators, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>copies as core issue of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>creativity impeded by, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>English, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>European, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>fair use and, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>felony punishment for infringement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>history of American, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>innovation hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>innovative freedom balanced with fair compensation in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Japanese, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>on music recordings, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>registration requirement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>scope of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>technology as automatic enforcer of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>term extensions in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>corporations</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright terms for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>in pharmaceutical industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Court of Appeals</dt><dd><dl><dt>Ninth Circuit, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>cover songs, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>creative property</dt><dd><dl><dt>common law protections of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>constitutional tradition on, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>other property rights vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>creativity</dt><dd><dl><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>legal restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>commercial vs. noncommercial, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>democracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>public discourse in, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>derivative works</dt><dd><dl><dt>fair use vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>historical shift in copyright coverage of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>piracy vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>technological developments and, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>developing countries, foreign patent costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>digital cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>doctors malpractice claims against, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson v. Beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>doujinshi comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>driving speed, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>drugs</dt><dd><dl><dt>pharmaceutical, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-books, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>education</dt><dd><dl><dt>in media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>tinkering as means of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>elections, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>electoral college, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>Electronic Frontier Foundation, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>England, copyright laws developed in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Enlightenment, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>environmentalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Errors and Omissions insurance, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>democratic, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>media literacy and, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>fair use, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>in documentary film, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Internet burdens on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>legal intimidation tactics against, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>farming, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>on FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>feudal system, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>film industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>trailer advertisements of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>films</dt><dd><dl><dt>animated, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>archive of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>fair use of copyrighted material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>multiple copyrights associated with, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>First Amendment, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>first-sale doctrine, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>FM radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formalities, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Fox (film company), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>free culture</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative works based on, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>four modalities of constraint on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>restoration efforts on previous aspects of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>free market, technological changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>generic drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>German copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Girl Scouts, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>Global Positioning System, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grimm fairy tales, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, King of England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>House of Lords, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>if value, then right theory, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">CHAPTER FOUR: «Pirates»</a></dt><dt>images, ownership of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>innovation, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>industry establishment opposed to, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insecticide, environmental consequences of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>international organization on issues of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>of drug patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>international law, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogs on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>books on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>copyright regulatory balance lost with, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>development of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">US, NOW</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">US, NOW</a></dt><dt> efficient content distribution on, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>initial free character of, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">US, NOW</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">US, NOW</a></dt><dt>news events on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>peer-generated rankings on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>privacy protection on, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>public discourse conducted on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>radio on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>search engines used on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iraq war, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>ISPs (Internet service providers), user identities revealed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanese comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp8052400">«PROPERTY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>journalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>knowledge, freedom of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Kodak cameras, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>land ownership, air traffic and, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law</dt><dd><dl><dt>as constraint modality, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>common vs. positive, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>databases of case reports in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>federal vs. state, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>legal system, attorney costs in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred case involvement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in international debate on intellectual property, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>archival function of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>journals in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>of public-domain literature, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>privacy rights in use of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</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. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Linux operating system, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: 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">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>market competition, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>market constraints, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blog pressure on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>commercial imperatives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>ownership concentration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>media literacy, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Mickey Mouse, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>network file system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>on free software, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Millar v. Taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>monopoly, copyright as, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>MP3 players, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>MP3s, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music publishing, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>number of registrations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>replacement of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>venture capital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>NET (No Electronic Theft) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>news coverage, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>archives of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nick and Norm anti-drug campaign, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt><dt>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt><dt>No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>norms, regulatory influence of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallel importation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>patents</dt><dd><dl><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>in public domain, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>on pharmaceuticals, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing</dt><dd><dl><dt>efficiency of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>felony punishments for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>regulatory balance lost in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> free culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>permissions</dt><dd><dl><dt>photography exempted from, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>pharmaceutical patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>photography, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</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>piracy</dt><dd><dl><dt>derivative work vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>in Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>in development of content industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">CHAPTER FOUR: «Pirates»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>player pianos, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a></dt><dt>political discourse, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Politics, (Aristotle), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornography, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positive law, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>power, concentration of, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>privacy rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Progress Clause, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>property rights</dt><dd><dl><dt>air traffic vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Free Use Vs. Fair Use</a></dt><dt>feudal system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>intangibility of, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp8052400">«PROPERTY»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>proprietary code, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>public domain</dt><dd><dl><dt>access fees for material in, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>balance of U.S. content in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>defined, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>e-book restrictions on, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>English legal establishment of, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>future patents vs. future copyrights in, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>library of works derived from, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>license system for rebuilding of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Public Library of Science (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM spectrum of, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>music recordings played on, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>railroad industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>recording industry</dt><dd><dl><dt>artist remuneration in, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>copyright protections in, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Internet radio hampered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>radio broadcast and, <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="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>statutory license system in, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright infringement lawsuits filed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>intimidation tactics of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>lobbying power of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>on Internet radio fees, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulation</dt><dd><dl><dt>as establishment protectionism, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>four modalities of, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>outsize penalties of, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>remote channel changers, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>computer network search engine of, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robotic dog, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</a></dt><dt>RPI (see Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>scientific journals, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Scottish publishers, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>search engines, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Senate, U.S., <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Beginnings</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>sheet music, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>single nucleotied polymorphisms (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Fire Lots of Lawyers</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robotic dog produced by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a></dt><dt>South Africa, Republic of, pharmaceutical imports by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>speech, freedom of</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional guarantee of, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>speeding, constraints on, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Law: Duration</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>statutory damages, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt><dt>statutory licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Recorded Music</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>steel industry, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">PREFACE</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Superman comics, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>Supreme Court, U.S.</dt><dd><dl><dt>access to opinions of, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>House of Lords vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>on airspace vs. land rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>on balance of interests in copyright law, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>on television advertising bans, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">CHAPTER EIGHT: Transformers</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>technology</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright enforcement controlled by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>copyright intent altered by, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>established industries threatened by changes in, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>television</dt><dd><dl><dt>advertising on, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Why Hollywood Is Right</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>controversy avoided by, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Rebuilding Freedoms Previously Presumed: Examples</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>history of copyright law in, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a></dt><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>United States Trade Representative (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a></dt><dt>university computer networks, p2p sharing on, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">CHAPTER THREE: Catalogs</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">CHAPTER SIX: Founders</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Together</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>VCRs, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Liberate the Music—Again</a></dt><dt>venture capitalists, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Shorter Terms</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: 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>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: «Property»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Architecture and Law: Force</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Rebuilding Free Culture: One Idea</a></dt><dt>Web-logs (blogs), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">CHAPTER ELEVEN: Chimera</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">CHAPTER NINE: Collectors</a></dt><dt>willful infringement, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Law and Architecture: Reach</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">CHAPTER ONE: Creators</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">CONCLUSION</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Market: Concentration</a></dt><dt>Wright brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">INTRODUCTION</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: «Mere Copyists»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Cable TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6313744">«PIRACY»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Law: Scope</a></dt></dl></div></div></div><div class="colophon"><h1 class="title"><a name="idp10854432"></a>Colophon</h1><p>
Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down
culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
</p><p>
343.7309/9,
(UDK) 347.78
(US Lib. of Congress) KF2979.L47 2004
+(ACM CRCS) K.4.1
</p><p>
</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="isbn"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">ISBN</th><th align="left">Format / MIME-type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">text/plain</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">application/pdf</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">text/html</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">application/epub+zip</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">application/docbook+xml</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">application/x-mobipocket-ebook</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
</p></div></div></body></html>
-<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 V1.78.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org) er professor i rettsvitenskap og John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School. Han 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), samt 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 BusinessWeeks e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific Americans 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved USAs syvende ankekrets."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book"><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 rettsvesenet til å begrense
-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"><a name="idp
5085328"></a><p>
+<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri
gjør kulturen</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.78.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org) er professor i rettsvitenskap og John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School. Han 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), samt 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 BusinessWeeks e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific Americans 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved USAs syvende ankekrets."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Frigjør kulturen</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og rettsvesenet til å begrense
+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"><a name="idp
3896336"></a><p>
<span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="38" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter forbeholdt"></span>
</p><p>
-Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri kultur</em> er lisensiert under en
-Creative Commons-lisens. Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
+Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Frigjør kulturen</em> er lisensiert
+under en Creative Commons-lisens. Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
utnyttelse av verket dersom opphavsmannen 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"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
-</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp2
45968"></a></h1></div></div></div><p>
+</p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp2
79856"></a></h1></div></div></div><p>
Til Eric Eldred — hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
hvem saken fortsetter.
-</p></div><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp1
1231504">Register</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="preface"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="toc"><dl class="toc"><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#idp1
0071792">Register</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="preface"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
<span class="bold"><strong>I slutten av</strong></span> sin gjennomgang av min første
bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev David
Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske og
slagene som nå utkjempes om livet online fundamentalt påvirker <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk
som ikke er pålogget.</span>»</span> Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss
fra Internetts påvirkning.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
74656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
165840"></a><p>
Men i motsetning til boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er tema her ikke så
mye Internett i seg selv. Istedet er boken om konsekvensen av Internett for
en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og uansett hvor hardt
sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
kultur</span>»</span>—ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri bar</span>»</span>
(for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
-programvarebevegelsen<a href="#ftn.idp79024" class="footnote" name="idp79024"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>), men
+programvarebevegelsen<a href="#ftn.idp182560" class="footnote" name="idp182560"><sup class="footnote">[2]</sup></a>), men
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">talefrihet,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt
marked,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frihandel,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri konkurranse,</span>»</span>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri vilje</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie valg.</span>»</span> En fri kultur støtter
høyresiden eller er uinteressert i det skillet, så bør historien jeg
forteller her forstyrre deg. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier
som begge sider av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
106528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp107344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp108160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5683808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5684560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5685312"></a><p>
Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseriet på forsommeren i 2003. Da
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vurderte endringer i reglene for
medieeierskap som ville slakke på begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrering,
makt—politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt—bør være
bannlyst av de konservative. Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
-og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<a href="#ftn.idp6038240" class="footnote" name="idp6038240"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a>
+og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<a href="#ftn.idp5688544" class="footnote" name="idp5688544"><sup class="footnote">[3]</sup></a>
</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 konsentreringen av
+Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Frigjør
+kulturen</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentreringen av
makt som følger av konsentreringen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
er mindre synlig, på konsentreringen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
endring i det effektive virkeområdet til rettsvesenet. Rettsvesenet er i
endring, og endringen forandrer hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen
bør bekymre deg—Uansett om du bryr deg om Internett eller ikke, og
uansett om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6041984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5692288"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Inspirasjonen</strong></span> til tittelen og mye av
argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman og Free
Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på nytt,
</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.preface01" class="footnote"><p><a href="#preface01" class="para"><sup class="para">[1] </sup></a>
David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp79024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp79024" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp182560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp182560" class="para"><sup class="para">[2] </sup></a>
Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Societies</em> 57
(Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6038240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6038240" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a> William Safire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
-Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6040096"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5688544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5688544" class="para"><sup class="para">[3] </sup></a> William Safire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
+Times</em>, 22. mai 2003. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5690400"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Introduksjon</h1></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxwrightbrothers"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Den 17. desember</strong></span> 1903, på en vindfylt
strand i Nord-Carolina i nesten hundre sekunder, demonstrerte
Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet rettsvesenet i USA at en
grunneier ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også
alt landet under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet
-over bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6060704" class="footnote" name="idp6060704"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle
+over bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp5711008" class="footnote" name="idp5711008"><sup class="footnote">[4]</sup></a> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle
tolke idéen om at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du
eide stjernene? Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok
seg inn på annen manns eiendom?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6062224"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5712528"></a><p>
Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
USA—dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid—en betydning. Hvis min
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="idp
6063456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6065392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5715072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5715824"></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 ble hevdet å fly i låveveggene og dø),
strakk seg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>»</span> så hadde regjeringen
trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbyene ønsket å sette en stopper for
dette.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6067808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6068560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5718240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5718992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></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.<a href="#ftn.idp6075456" class="footnote" name="idp6075456"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a>
+eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<a href="#ftn.idp5725888" class="footnote" name="idp5725888"><sup class="footnote">[5]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6081088"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5731552"></a><p>
Det er slik rettsvesenet vanligvis fungerer. Ikke ofte like brått eller
utålmodig, men til slutt er dette slik loven fungerer. Det var ikke stilen
sedvaneretts-system, slik som vårt er, at rettsvesenet 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="idp
6084704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6085488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6086304"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5735168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5735952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5736768"></a><p>
Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på motsatt
side av endringen. Causbyene var bare bønder. Og selv om det uten tvil var
mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span>—vinne frem. Deres <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personlige
interesser</span>»</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en åpenbar fordel for
fellesskapet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6090736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6092112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6093088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6094064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6096272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6097024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6097776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5741200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5742656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5743632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5744608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5746816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5747568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5748320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> er en av USAs
glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
utført. … Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
-radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6106272" class="footnote" name="idp6106272"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a>
+radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp5756816" class="footnote" name="idp5756816"><sup class="footnote">[6]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrca"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediaownershipconcentrationin"></a><p>
Som vår egen sunne fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
alle stasjonene i de store byene var eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6113120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5763616"></a><p>
Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
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
</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.<a href="#ftn.idp6102384" class="footnote" name="idp6102384"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6119872"></a><p>
+starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<a href="#ftn.idp5752928" class="footnote" name="idp5752928"><sup class="footnote">[7]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5770416"></a><p>
Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
kampanje for å kvele FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
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 fremveksten av RCAs
-makt.<a href="#ftn.idp6123792" class="footnote" name="idp6123792"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a>
+makt.<a href="#ftn.idp5774336" class="footnote" name="idp5774336"><sup class="footnote">[8]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfcconfmradio"></a><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.<a href="#ftn.idp6129600" class="footnote" name="idp6129600"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6130368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6131344"></a><p>
+var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<a href="#ftn.idp5780144" class="footnote" name="idp5780144"><sup class="footnote">[9]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5780912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5781888"></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 FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
til å kjøpe kablede linjer fra AT&T.) Spredningen av FM-radio var
dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6133104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6134080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5783648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5784624"></a><p>
Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
patentene ugyldige—uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning. Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6135312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idm88640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idm87392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idm86576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5785856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp3152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp4400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5216"></a><p>
Dette er slik rettsvesenet virker noen ganger. Ikke ofte like tragisk, og
sjelden med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra
en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen av vår politiske
prosess. RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
effekten av en teknologisk endring.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
m83888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idm82672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="id
p7904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Det er ingen</strong></span> enkeltoppfinner av
Internet. Ei heller er det en god dato som kan brukes til å markere når det
ble født. Likevel har Internett i løpet 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 Internett i
-2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år tidligere.<a href="#ftn.idp6156320" class="footnote" name="idp6156320"><sup class="footnote">[10]</sup></a> Det tallet kan uten problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen
+2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år tidligere.<a href="#ftn.idp5806464" class="footnote" name="idp5806464"><sup class="footnote">[10]</sup></a> Det tallet kan uten problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen
ved utgangen av 2004.
</p><p>
Etter hvert som Internett er blitt en integrert del av det vanlige liv har
fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den. Men de
fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som Internett har
introdusert.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6160816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6161792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6164032"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5810960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5811936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5814176"></a><p>
Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte rettsvesenets reguleringer til hver av
Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet. I starten forsiktig, etter
hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven incentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verk, slik at de kan selge disse
-eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<a href="#ftn.idp6172048" class="footnote" name="idp6172048"><sup class="footnote">[11]</sup></a> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
+eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<a href="#ftn.idp5822192" class="footnote" name="idp5822192"><sup class="footnote">[11]</sup></a> 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6175152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6176160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5825296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5826304"></a><p>
Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
-fjernet.<a href="#ftn.idp6177600" class="footnote" name="idp6177600"><sup class="footnote">[12]</sup></a> Internett har satt scenen for
+fjernet.<a href="#ftn.idp5827744" class="footnote" name="idp5827744"><sup class="footnote">[12]</sup></a> Internett har satt scenen for
denne fjerningen, og presset frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
påvirket den. For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekkevidde for reguleringene
den delen av vår kultur som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
tillatelse—er blitt borte. Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6179360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6181344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6182096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5829504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5831360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5832112"></a><p>
Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
kommersiell kreativitet. Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
som motiverer endringen. Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven til å
beskytte selskapene. Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
drømmen til Causbyene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6184864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5834880"></a><p>
For Internett har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
lokale grenselinjer. Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
loven til å beskytte dem mot denne nye, mer effektive, mer levende
teknologien for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
Internett før Internett gjør om på dem.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6187200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6190800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5837216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5840816"></a><p>
Det ser ikke slik ut for mange. Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
Internett er fjernt for de fleste. For de få som følger dem, virker de i
hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål—hvorvidt
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> vil bli beskyttet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Krigen</span>»</span> som
har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til Internett—det presidenten for
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Jack Valenti, kaller sin
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6194048" class="footnote" name="idp6194048"><sup class="footnote">[13]</sup></a>—har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp5844064" class="footnote" name="idp5844064"><sup class="footnote">[13]</sup></a>—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, tenker de fleste at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
eiendomsrett eller mot den.
legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
Internetts <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som har
vært integrert i vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6199888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6200896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6201904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6202656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5849904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5850912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5851920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5852672"></a><p>
Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne retten til å bygge fritt på sin
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 med kraft argumenterer,<a href="#ftn.idp6204400" class="footnote" name="idp6204400"><sup class="footnote">[14]</sup></a> åndsverkslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
+kontroll. Og som professor Neil Netanel med kraft argumenterer,<a href="#ftn.idp5854416" class="footnote" name="idp5854416"><sup class="footnote">[14]</sup></a> åndsverkslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
skaperne mot privat kontroll. Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
tradisjonen til velgjørere. I stedet skar det ut et bredt 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="idp
6211888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6212528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5861904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5862544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Lik Causbyenes</strong></span> kamp er denne krigen,
delvis, om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett.</span>»</span> Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke
like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så
rette</span>»</span> mot legitime krav til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett.</span>»</span> Det er
like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å
stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6218960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6219712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6220464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5868976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5869728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5870480"></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
+Wright-brødrenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
fornuft gjør ikke opprør. I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen. I
motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har Internett ikke inspirert
en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6222496"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5872512"></a><p>
Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre. Jeg har blitt stadig mer
overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
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 standpunkt?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6229376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6230128"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5879392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5880144"></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
på annen manns eiendom. Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye
mer dyptgripende.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6232976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5882992"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Basketaket</strong></span> som pågår akkurat nå senterer
seg rundt to idéer: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom.</span>»</span> Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er å
deprimerende kompromittert prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon—en konsekvens
de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6060704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6060704" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp5711008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5711008" class="para"><sup class="para">[4] </sup></a>
St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6075456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6075456" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5725888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5725888" class="para"><sup class="para">[5] </sup></a>
USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
ødelagt verdien av eiendommen til Causby. Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
-Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6079152"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6078768"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6106272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6106272" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>
+Foundation Press (1984)), 1112–13. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5729584"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5729200"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5756816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5756816" class="para"><sup class="para">[6] </sup></a>
Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6102384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6102384" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5752928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5752928" class="para"><sup class="para">[7] </sup></a> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6123792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6123792" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>Lessing, 226.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6129600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6129600" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5774336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5774336" class="para"><sup class="para">[8] </sup></a>Lessing, 226.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5780144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5780144" class="para"><sup class="para">[9] </sup></a>
Lessing, 256.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6156320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6156320" class="para"><sup class="para">[10] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5806464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5806464" class="para"><sup class="para">[10] </sup></a>
Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6172048" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6172048" class="para"><sup class="para">[11] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5822192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5822192" class="para"><sup class="para">[11] </sup></a>
Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
Åndsverkslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
åndsverkslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta om
seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to
Privacy,</span>»</span> Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198–200.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp6079024"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6177600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6177600" class="para"><sup class="para">[12] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp5729456"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5827744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5827744" class="para"><sup class="para">[12] </sup></a>
Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
-Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6178480"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6194048" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6194048" class="para"><sup class="para">[13] </sup></a>
+Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5828624"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5844064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5844064" class="para"><sup class="para">[13] </sup></a>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6204400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6204400" class="para"><sup class="para">[14] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5854416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5854416" class="para"><sup class="para">[14] </sup></a>
Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6205680"></a>
-</p></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6242288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6244784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6245536"></a><p>
+<em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5855696"></a>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5892304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5894800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5895552"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Helt siden</strong></span> loven begynte å regulere
kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet.</span>»</span> Det presise omrisset 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.<a href="#ftn.idp6249520" class="footnote" name="idp6249520"><sup class="footnote">[15]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6251184"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp6252288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
+etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<a href="#ftn.idp5899536" class="footnote" name="idp5899536"><sup class="footnote">[15]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5901200"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp5902304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krig</span>»</span> mot
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet.</span>»</span> Internett har fremprovosert denne krigen.
mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Denne delingen har i sin tur ansporet
til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av opphavsretter frykter delingen vil
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">robbe forfatteren for profitten.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6258432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5908448"></a><p>
Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> mot denne
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten.</span>»</span> En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
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="idp
6265936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6266688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6267440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5915872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5916624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5917376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene. Det er hva jussprofessor
Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
-rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <a href="#ftn.idp6272320" class="footnote" name="idp6272320"><sup class="footnote">[16]</sup></a>—hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
+rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <a href="#ftn.idp5922256" class="footnote" name="idp5922256"><sup class="footnote">[16]</sup></a>—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 sang rundt sine leirbål.<a href="#ftn.idp6274448" class="footnote" name="idp6274448"><sup class="footnote">[17]</sup></a> Det fantes <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det
+betale for sangene som jentene sang rundt sine leirbål.<a href="#ftn.idp5924304" class="footnote" name="idp5924304"><sup class="footnote">[17]</sup></a> Det fantes <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det
måtte ha vært en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettighet</span>»</span>—til og med i forhold til
jentespeiderne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6279104"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5928880"></a><p>
Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
eierrettigheter bør virke. Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter. Det har aldri vært vår
rettspraksis.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6281808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5931584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
Det bidrar til fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men forblir
underordnet verdien til kreativitet. Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt
å markere—skillet mellom å publisere på nytt noens verk på den ene
siden, og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre. Da opphavsretten kom
var det kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6288320"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5938096"></a><p>
Før teknologiene til Internett dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
sammenblandingen mye. Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
håndtere byrden pålagt av loven—til og med byrden med den bysantiske
kompleksiteten som åndsverksloven har blitt. Det var bare nok en kostnad
ved å drive forretning.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6289520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6291520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6292272"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5939296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5941296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5942048"></a><p>
Men da Internett dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
lovens virkeområde. Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger
loven denne kreativiteten med sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med
trusselen om uanstendig harde straffer. Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida
-skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremveksten av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6294240" class="footnote" name="idp6294240"><sup class="footnote">[18]</sup></a> Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av
+skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremveksten av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp5944016" class="footnote" name="idp5944016"><sup class="footnote">[18]</sup></a> Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av
reguleringer av denne kreative klassen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6299776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5949552"></a><p>
Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon. Vi bør begynne med å forstå
den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
merkelappen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6249520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6249520" class="para"><sup class="para">[15] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp5899536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5899536" class="para"><sup class="para">[15] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6272320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6272320" class="para"><sup class="para">[16] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5922256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5922256" class="para"><sup class="para">[16] </sup></a>
Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6274448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6274448" class="para"><sup class="para">[17] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5924304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5924304" class="para"><sup class="para">[17] </sup></a>
Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
-Globe</em>, 24. november 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6277072"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6294240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6294240" class="para"><sup class="para">[18] </sup></a>
+Globe</em>, 24. november 2002. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5926848"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5944016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5944016" class="para"><sup class="para">[18] </sup></a>
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="idp6297552"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6298560"></a>
+vanskeligere. <a class="indexterm" name="idp5947328"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp5948336"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimatedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsanimated"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatwillie"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmickeymouse"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>I 1928</strong></span> ble en tegnefilmfigur født. En
tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn
Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk. De reagerte
nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse. Jeg trodde de
tullet med meg. Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt. Det
-var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<a href="#ftn.idp6318160" class="footnote" name="idp6318160"><sup class="footnote">[19]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6319568"></a><p>
+var grufullt, men det var fantastisk. Og det var noe nytt!<a href="#ftn.idp5967936" class="footnote" name="idp5967936"><sup class="footnote">[19]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5969344"></a><p>
Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
animasjonfilmens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelser som satte
standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle. Og ganske ofte var Disneys
store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6321968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5971744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
Dette er kjent stoff. Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
annen viktig overgang. I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm. Dette geniet var
<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,<a href="#ftn.idp6333152" class="footnote" name="idp6333152"><sup class="footnote">[20]</sup></a> og begge bygger på en felles sang
+Bill,<a href="#ftn.idp5982928" class="footnote" name="idp5982928"><sup class="footnote">[20]</sup></a> 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
Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span>
at vi får Steamboat Willie. Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6339952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6340928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6341904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6342880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
5989728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5990704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5991680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp5992656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">låningen</span>»</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
industrien. Disney apet alltid etter helaftensfilmene rettet mot
-massemarkedet rundt ham.<a href="#ftn.idp6347360" class="footnote" name="idp6347360"><sup class="footnote">[21]</sup></a> Det samme
+massemarkedet rundt ham.<a href="#ftn.idp5997136" class="footnote" name="idp5997136"><sup class="footnote">[21]</sup></a> 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
Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt seg, blandet med
kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
blandingen inn i sjelen til kulturen sin. Hente, blande og brenne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
361056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
010832"></a><p>
Dette er en type kreativitet. Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
feire. Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
denne typen. Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
litt misvisende. Det er mer presist <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>—en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
364064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6365040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6366016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
013840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6014816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6015792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><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. Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
år—for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
-opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<a href="#ftn.idp6363600" class="footnote" name="idp6363600"><sup class="footnote">[22]</sup></a> Det betyr at i
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<a href="#ftn.idp6013376" class="footnote" name="idp6013376"><sup class="footnote">[22]</sup></a> Det betyr at i
tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller opphavsrettighetsinnehaver
av kreative verk en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>»</span> til a kontrollere bestemte
typer bruk av verket. Å bruke disse opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de
i 1928. Det var tilgjengelig for enhver—uansett om de hadde
forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
ikke—til å bruke og bygge videre på.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
376976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6378800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
026752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6028576"></a><p>
Dette er slik det alltid har vært—inntil ganske nylig. I mesteparten
av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten. Fram til 1978
nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å bygge på uten
tillatelse. Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for innhold fra før
mellomkrigstiden.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
381264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6382240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6383216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6384192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6385168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6386144"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6
031040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6032016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6032992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6033968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6034944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6035920"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Walt Disney</strong></span> hadde selvfølgelig ikke
monopol på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney-kreativitet.</span>»</span> Det har heller ikke
USA. Normen med fri kultur har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære
hverandre, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som kontrollerer det
kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge doujinshi-markedet. Det blomstrer,
på tross av konkurransen og på tross for loven.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7201168"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6060432"></a><p>
Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
Under japansk åndsverkslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på papiret)
opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig. Det er et brudd på
opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et avledet
verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7205008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6064272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
Likevel eksisterer og blomstrer faktisk dette illegale markedet i Japan, og
etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
blomstrer. Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I
Japan i dag. … Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
hverandre. … Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne — ved å se
i tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
-dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<a href="#ftn.idp7207952" class="footnote" name="idp7207952"><sup class="footnote">[23]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7210304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7211280"></a><p>
+dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<a href="#ftn.idp6068160" class="footnote" name="idp6068160"><sup class="footnote">[23]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6069696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6070560"></a><p>
Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
får lov til. Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er det
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
gamle.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7214384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7216848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6073664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6076128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></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 har for eksempel en hypotese om at manga-markedet aksepterer
disse teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
produktivt. Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
-bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<a href="#ftn.idp7220032" class="footnote" name="idp7220032"><sup class="footnote">[24]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7222832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7223808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7224784"></a><p>
+bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<a href="#ftn.idp6079312" class="footnote" name="idp6079312"><sup class="footnote">[24]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6082112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6083088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6084064"></a><p>
Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hold hendene
borte</span>»</span>-responsen ikke er forstått. Det kan godt være at markedet som
finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
blokkere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie ta-ingen</span>»</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7227712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7228688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6086992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6087968"></a><p>
Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
som jeg kunne. Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater,</span>»</span>
Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
eller skade dem?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7232704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6091984"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>La oss ta</strong></span> et øyeblikks pause.
</p><p>
Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom.</span>»</span> Jeg er en av de som
feirer den. Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7236704" class="footnote" name="idp7236704"><sup class="footnote">[25]</sup></a> Et
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6095984" class="footnote" name="idp6095984"><sup class="footnote">[25]</sup></a> Et
stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7243104"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6102368"></a><p>
Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
verdi der ute som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke dekker. Jeg mener ikke
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>»</span> men i stedet en verdi
verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
bra.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7249808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7252272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6109072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6111536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
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—eller bare en kopi—uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt. I tillegg til å ha 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><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7257184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6116448"></a><p>
Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler.</span>»</span> Denne formen for
Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7260384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7261360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7262336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7263312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7264288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7265264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7266240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6119648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6120624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6121600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6122576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6123552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6124528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6125504"></a><p>
Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
begynner å se etter dem. Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
for alle å ta—frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en
viss grad i alle samfunn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7270288"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6129552"></a><p>
Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
er fri. Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
er i stedet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen?</span>»</span>
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><a class="indexterm" name="idp7276208"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6318160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6318160" class="para"><sup class="para">[19] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6135472"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp5967936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5967936" class="para"><sup class="para">[19] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp6333152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6333152" class="para"><sup class="para">[20] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5982928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5982928" class="para"><sup class="para">[20] </sup></a>
Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>»</span> var allerede allemannseie. Brev fra
David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
forfatteren.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6347360" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6347360" class="para"><sup class="para">[21] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5997136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5997136" class="para"><sup class="para">[21] </sup></a>
Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6363600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6363600" class="para"><sup class="para">[22] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6013376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6013376" class="para"><sup class="para">[22] </sup></a>
Inntil 1976 ga åndsverksloven 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 id="ftn.idp7207952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7207952" class="para"><sup class="para">[23] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6068160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6068160" class="para"><sup class="para">[23] </sup></a>
For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7220032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7220032" class="para"><sup class="para">[24] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6079312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6079312" class="para"><sup class="para">[24] </sup></a>
Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7236704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7236704" class="para"><sup class="para">[25] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6095984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6095984" class="para"><sup class="para">[25] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7237088"></a> Begrepet <em class="citetitle">intellektuell
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6096368"></a> Begrepet <em class="citetitle">intellektuell
eiendom</em> er av relativ ny opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan,
<em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York
University Press, 2001). Se også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of
beskriver presist et sett med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rettigheter —
opphavsretter, patenter, varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter — men
egenskapene til disse rettighetene er svært forskjellige.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7278944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6138208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>I 1839</strong></span> fant Louis Daguerre opp den første
praktiske teknologien for å produsere det vi ville kalle
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier.</span>»</span> Rimelig nok ble de kalt
velstående amatører. (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7284800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6144064"></a><p>
Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
sterk. Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatiske bilder.</span>»</span> William Talbot oppdaget snart en
Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken. Enheten ble markedsført med fokus på
dets enkelhet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
-resten.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7293840" class="footnote" name="idp7293840"><sup class="footnote">[26]</sup></a> Som han skrev i
+resten.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6153104" class="footnote" name="idp6153104"><sup class="footnote">[26]</sup></a> Som han skrev i
<em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
et apparat som helt fjernet kravet om spesielt utstyr og fra
fotograferingspraksisen, og helt fjernet krav om spesiell kunnskap innen
kunstarten. Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten et mørkerom
-og uten kjemikalier.<a href="#ftn.idp6107040" class="footnote" name="idp6107040"><sup class="footnote">[27]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7299424"></a><p>
+og uten kjemikalier.<a href="#ftn.idp5757584" class="footnote" name="idp5757584"><sup class="footnote">[27]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6158688"></a><p>
For 25 dollar kunne alle ta bilder. Det var allerede film i kameraet, og
når det var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen
ble fremkalt. Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og
lagt ut for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen
negativer om dagen. Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien
vokste med 4,7 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med
-11 prosent.<a href="#ftn.idp7301424" class="footnote" name="idp7301424"><sup class="footnote">[28]</sup></a> Salget til Eastman Kodak
-opplevde i samme periode en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<a href="#ftn.idp7302384" class="footnote" name="idp7302384"><sup class="footnote">[29]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7303280"></a><p>
+11 prosent.<a href="#ftn.idp6160688" class="footnote" name="idp6160688"><sup class="footnote">[28]</sup></a> Salget til Eastman Kodak
+opplevde i samme periode en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<a href="#ftn.idp6161648" class="footnote" name="idp6161648"><sup class="footnote">[29]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6162544"></a><p>
Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
og dens aktiviteter. … For første gang i historien fantes det en
autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
-laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7305264" class="footnote" name="idp7305264"><sup class="footnote">[30]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7307120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7308096"></a><p>
+laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6164528" class="footnote" name="idp6164528"><sup class="footnote">[30]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6166384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6167360"></a><p>
På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører. Med
kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken gjorde mulig. Demokratiske verktøy ga
vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke seg selv enklere enn noe annet verktøy kunne
ha gjort før.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7311200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6170464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre. Eastmans genialitet
var åpenbart en viktig del. Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig. For tidlig i historien til
fotografering, var det en rekke rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
kursen til fotograferingen betydelig. Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og trykke
-hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<a href="#ftn.idp7314704" class="footnote" name="idp7314704"><sup class="footnote">[31]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7317904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><p>
+hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket. Svaret var nei.<a href="#ftn.idp6173968" class="footnote" name="idp6173968"><sup class="footnote">[31]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6177168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idximagesownershipof"></a><p>
Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
ut. Fotografen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok</span>»</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
tok motivets sjel. På samme måte som Disney ikke sto fritt til å ta
blyantene som hans animatører brukte for å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller
ikke disse fotografene stå fritt til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7323264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7324016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6182528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6183280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology2"></a><p>
På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt. Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område. (Louis
Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
-annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<a href="#ftn.idp7326880" class="footnote" name="idp7326880"><sup class="footnote">[32]</sup></a>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
+annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<a href="#ftn.idp6186144" class="footnote" name="idp6186144"><sup class="footnote">[32]</sup></a>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7331056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6190320"></a><p>
Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene. Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre. I stedet
ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
begrensninger enn resten av oss. Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
-tas uten å klarere rettighetene for å ta det.<a href="#ftn.idp7333072" class="footnote" name="idp7333072"><sup class="footnote">[33]</sup></a>)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7336352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7337104"></a><p>
+tas uten å klarere rettighetene for å ta det.<a href="#ftn.idp6192336" class="footnote" name="idp6192336"><sup class="footnote">[33]</sup></a>)
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6195616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6196368"></a><p>
Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
hadde slått ut den andre veien. Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass. Kanskje
tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene. Vi kan
forestille oss at et system blir utviklet for å legge frem slike
tillatelser.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7340592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7342800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7343888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6199856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6202064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6203152"></a><p>
villa aldri ha skjedd. Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd. Og det
ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
uttrykksteknologi.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7345488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7348208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7349184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7350160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7351136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6204752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6207472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6208448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6209424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6210400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjustthink"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Hvis du kjører</strong></span> gjennom området Presidio i
San Francisco, kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med
fargefulle og iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> i
og billigere. Kostnaden til et digitalt høykvalitets videosystem har falt
dramatisk. Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video 25 000 dollar. I dag
-kan du få profesjonell kvalitet for 595 dollar.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7362208" class="footnote" name="idp7362208"><sup class="footnote">[34]</sup></a> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville
+kan du få profesjonell kvalitet for 595 dollar.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6221472" class="footnote" name="idp6221472"><sup class="footnote">[34]</sup></a> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville
kostet hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden. Og det er nå mulig å
forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lese- og
-skriveferdigheter innen media.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7365696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6224960"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Lese- og -skriveferdigheter innen media,</span>»</span> som administrerende
å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål er å gjøre [unger]
i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de er konstruert,
hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7368960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6228320"></a><p>
Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lese- og
-skriveferdigheter.</span>»</span> For de fleste handler lese- og
-skriveferdigheter å kunne lese og skrive. Folk med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lese- og
-skriveferdigheter</span>»</span> kjenner begreper som Faulkner og Hemingway, og
kan kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7371600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7372432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7373248"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6230960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6231792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6232608"></a><p>
Mulig det. Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
TV-reklamer i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
-reklameinnslag,<a href="#ftn.idp7374928" class="footnote" name="idp7374928"><sup class="footnote">[35]</sup></a> så er det mer og mer
+reklameinnslag,<a href="#ftn.idp6234288" class="footnote" name="idp6234288"><sup class="footnote">[35]</sup></a> så er det mer og mer
viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grammatikken</span>»</span> i medieinnslag. For på samme
måte som det er en grammatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for
media. Og akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom
er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av oss har en følelse for hvordan
media fungerer, hvordan det holder på publikum eller leder leseren gjennom
historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7367360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6237888"></a><p>
Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra. Men
selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
den. En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
skrevet. En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
reflektere over det en har laget.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7383344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6242704"></a><p>
Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg. Da
det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
ved USC skole for kino og TV, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, … rytme, skritt og
-tekstur.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7368208" class="footnote" name="idp7368208"><sup class="footnote">[36]</sup></a> Men etter hvert som
+tekstur.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6227568" class="footnote" name="idp6227568"><sup class="footnote">[36]</sup></a> Men etter hvert som
datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremført</span>»</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg. Den
enkle kontrollen til fortellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
lære. Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
de får følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en svært vellykket
-forfatter.<a href="#ftn.idp7389328" class="footnote" name="idp7389328"><sup class="footnote">[37]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7392240"></a><p>
+forfatter.<a href="#ftn.idp6248688" class="footnote" name="idp6248688"><sup class="footnote">[37]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6251600"></a><p>
Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
blir ledet gjennom en film. Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede. Målet med
enhver lese- og skriveferdighet, og denne lese- og skriveferdigheten
spesielt, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gi folket makt til å velge det språket som passer for
-det de trenger å lage eller uttrykke.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7399520" class="footnote" name="idp7399520"><sup class="footnote">[38]</sup></a> Det gir studenter mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til
-det tjueførste århundret.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7401824" class="footnote" name="idp7401824"><sup class="footnote">[39]</sup></a>
+det de trenger å lage eller uttrykke.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6258880" class="footnote" name="idp6258880"><sup class="footnote">[38]</sup></a> Det gir studenter mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til
+det tjueførste århundret.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6261184" class="footnote" name="idp6261184"><sup class="footnote">[39]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbarishstephanie"></a><p>
Som med ethvert annet språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
andre. Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
skolen en fiasko. Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene
en mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som
studentene kjente godt til—våpen-relatert vold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7405808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6265168"></a><p>
Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
skolen. Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ungene
tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> idéene godt.
Kraften i dette budskapet var avhenging av hvordan det hang sammen med
uttryksformen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7412960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6272320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdaleyelizabeth2"></a><p>
film.</span>»</span> Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe ungen å ta disse elementene som
ungen forstår, som er vedkommendes språk, og konstruer mening om
temaet.…
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7421104"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6280464"></a><p>
Dette gir enorm opplevelse av makt. Og det som skjer til slutt,
selvfølgelig, som det har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp
når de treffer faktumet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger
noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe. De trengte faktisk å
bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra. Men de hadde begynt å
forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7425264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7426240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7427216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7428192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7430400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6284624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6285600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6286576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6287552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxseptemberterroristattacksof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6289760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Da to fly</strong></span> krasjet inn i World Trade
Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og et fjerde inn i et jorde i
Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg mot denne nyheten. Hvert
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet. Dette var nyheter koreografert slik
vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
underholdning,</span>»</span> selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7436160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7436912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6295520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6296272"></a><p>
Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedien
11. september,</span>»</span> kunne de av oss som er knyttet til Internett se en
svært annerledes produksjon. Internett er fullt av fortellinger om de samme
begrepet i hans bok <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, rundt en
nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden. Det var
ABC og CBS, men det var også Internett.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7439808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6299168"></a><p>
Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise Internett—selv om
jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises. Jeg
tradisjon—ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7442960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6302320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs"></a><p>
11. september var ikke et avvik. Det var en start. Omtrent på samme tid,
begynte en form for kommunkasjon, som hadde vokst dramatisk, å komme inn i
offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog. Bloggen er en slags offentlig
dagbok. I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
måte—det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7450000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6309360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetpublicdiscourseconductedon"></a><p>
Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter. Det er noen som
bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv. Men det er mange som
bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker av
at disse valgene teller. Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse
valgene. Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
rutinepreget. De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7459888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7460864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7461840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7462816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7465056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6319248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6320224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6321200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6322176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdemocracypublicdiscoursein"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6324416"></a><p>
Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om å gjennomføre valg. Demokrati betyr
at folket styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn å kunne velge. I vår
tradisjon betyr det også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning.
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
enige om et enstemmig resultat for at prosessen skulle
-avsluttes.<a href="#ftn.idp7468960" class="footnote" name="idp7468960"><sup class="footnote">[40]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7470320"></a><p>
+avsluttes.<a href="#ftn.idp6328320" class="footnote" name="idp6328320"><sup class="footnote">[40]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6329600"></a><p>
Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag. Og i dets sted er det
ingen systematisk innsats for å gjøre borger-diskusjon mulig. Noen gjør en
-innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<a href="#ftn.idp7471968" class="footnote" name="idp7471968"><sup class="footnote">[41]</sup></a>
+innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<a href="#ftn.idp6331248" class="footnote" name="idp6331248"><sup class="footnote">[41]</sup></a>
Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe som ligner på diskusjon igjen.
Men for de fleste av oss det meste av tiden, mangler det tid og sted for å
gjennomføre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon.</span>»</span>
mot å diskutere politikk. Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
-ekstrem.<a href="#ftn.idp7476624" class="footnote" name="idp7476624"><sup class="footnote">[42]</sup></a> Vi sier det våre venner vil
+ekstrem.<a href="#ftn.idp6335904" class="footnote" name="idp6335904"><sup class="footnote">[42]</sup></a> Vi sier det våre venner vil
høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7479424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7482896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7483872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7484848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogsweblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6338608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetblogson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxweblogsblogs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6342080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6343056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6344032"></a><p>
Så kommer bloggen. Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
problemet. Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
venstresiden. Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
-*liberale*, men det er mange av alle politiske farger. Til og med blogger
-som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever det.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7488176"></a><p>
+*frihetsforkjempere*, men det er mange av alle politiske farger. Til og med
+blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
+det.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6347360"></a><p>
Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
fra hos noen få blogger. Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
lese dem en effekt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7489824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7490576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6349008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6349760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediablogpressureon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetnewseventson2"></a><p>
En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
store mediene. Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel. Da Lott <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sa
feil</span>»</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien. Etter hvert dukket flere og
flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>»</span> opp. Så dukket
historien opp igjen hos de store mediene. Lott ble til slutt tvunget til å
-trekke seg som flertallsleder i senatet.<a href="#ftn.idp7496528" class="footnote" name="idp7496528"><sup class="footnote">[43]</sup></a>
+trekke seg som flertallsleder i senatet.<a href="#ftn.idp6355712" class="footnote" name="idp6355712"><sup class="footnote">[43]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediacommercialimperativesof"></a><p>
Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler. TV og
aviser er kommersielle aktører. De må arbeide for å holde på
oppmerksomheten. Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter. Som haier,
må de bevege seg videre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7500352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7501328"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6359536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6360512"></a><p>
Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begrensninger. De kan bli opphengt, de
kan fokusere, de kan bli seriøse. Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en
spesielt interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den
så stiger den i rangeringen for historier. Folk leser det som er populært,
og det som er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess
av likemanns-generert rangering.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7503552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6362736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjournalism"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
mediene. Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du på en måte vet du kan
rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7509728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7510480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7511488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7512240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6368912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6369664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6370672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6371424"></a><p>
Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
sentralstyrt (mer om dette under). Konsentrerte medier kan skjule mer fra
offentligheten enn ikke-konsentrerte medier kan—slik CNN innrømte at
de gjorde etter Irak-krigen fordi de var redd for konsekvensene for sine
-egne ansatte.<a href="#ftn.idp7467152" class="footnote" name="idp7467152"><sup class="footnote">[44]</sup></a> De trenger også å
+egne ansatte.<a href="#ftn.idp6326512" class="footnote" name="idp6326512"><sup class="footnote">[44]</sup></a> De trenger også å
opprettholde en mer konsistent rapportering. (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste
jeg en melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Irak. New York-hovedkvarteret ba
tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som
skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">historien.</span>»</span>)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7516512"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6375696"></a><p>
Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
debatten—<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amatør</span>»</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
komme med deres rapport. Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
en historie, slik rapporteringen av Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til Internett for å gjenfortelle
-hva de hadde sett.<a href="#ftn.idp7518976" class="footnote" name="idp7518976"><sup class="footnote">[45]</sup></a> Og det får lesere
+hva de hadde sett.<a href="#ftn.idp6378160" class="footnote" name="idp6378160"><sup class="footnote">[45]</sup></a> Og det får lesere
til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulere,</span>»</span>
som Winer formulerer det, sannheten. Blogger, sier Winer,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommuniserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalismen</span>»</span> er glad for
dette—noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
-blogging.<a href="#ftn.idp7522640" class="footnote" name="idp7522640"><sup class="footnote">[46]</sup></a> Men det er klart at vi
+blogging.<a href="#ftn.idp6381824" class="footnote" name="idp6381824"><sup class="footnote">[46]</sup></a> Men det er klart at vi
fortsatt er i en overgangsfase. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
oppvarmingsøvelser,</span>»</span> fortalte Winer meg. Det er mye som må modne før
dette feltet har modnet ferdig. Og etter som inkludering av innhold på
dette feltet er det feltet med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på Internett, sa
Wiener at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7532960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6392144"></a><p>
Slik tale påvirker demokratiet. Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">du
trenger ikke jobber til noen som kontrollerer, [til] en portvokter.</span>»</span>
Det er sant. Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en annen måte. Etter
demokratiet. I dag er det antagelig et par millioner blogger der det
skrives på denne måten. Når det er ti millioner, så vil det være noe
ekstraordinært å rapportere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7536576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7537552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7538528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7539504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7540480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7541456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7542432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6395760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6396736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6397712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6398688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6399664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6400640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6401616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> er sjefsforsker ved
Xerox Corporation. Hans arbeid, i følge hans eget nettsted, er
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og … å skape kunnskapsøkologier for å skape
musikalsk, at du er kunstnerisk, du er visuell, at du er interessert i film
…da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet. Det kan
fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7559088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7560064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6418272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6419248"></a><p>
Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer bort såvel som at den skaper. Den
kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>) har
utviklet et kraftig argument til fordel for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten til å
fikle</span>»</span> slik det gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap
-generelt.<a href="#ftn.idp7564656" class="footnote" name="idp7564656"><sup class="footnote">[47]</sup></a> Men bekymringen til Brown er
+generelt.<a href="#ftn.idp6423840" class="footnote" name="idp6423840"><sup class="footnote">[47]</sup></a> Men bekymringen til Brown er
tidligere, og mer fundamentalt. Det handler om hva slags læring unger kan
få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av loven.
</p><p>
undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. … Vi
bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7570080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6429264"></a><p>
Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
denne kreativiteten over alt. Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke måten å styre en kultur på,</span>»</span> sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
nedstemthet.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7293840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7293840" class="para"><sup class="para">[26] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6153104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6153104" class="para"><sup class="para">[26] </sup></a>
Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6107040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6107040" class="para"><sup class="para">[27] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp5757584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp5757584" class="para"><sup class="para">[27] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7297648"></a> Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6156912"></a> Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of
Photography</em> (New York: Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7301424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7301424" class="para"><sup class="para">[28] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6160688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6160688" class="para"><sup class="para">[28] </sup></a>
Jenkins, 177.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7302384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7302384" class="para"><sup class="para">[29] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6161648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6161648" class="para"><sup class="para">[29] </sup></a>
Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7305264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7305264" class="para"><sup class="para">[30] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6164528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6164528" class="para"><sup class="para">[30] </sup></a>
Coe, 58.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7314704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7314704" class="para"><sup class="para">[31] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6173968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6173968" class="para"><sup class="para">[31] </sup></a>
For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
<em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
<em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1894).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7326880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7326880" class="para"><sup class="para">[32] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6186144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6186144" class="para"><sup class="para">[32] </sup></a>
Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>»</span>
-<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7328160"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7329168"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7333072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7333072" class="para"><sup class="para">[33] </sup></a>
+<em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6187424"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6188432"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6192336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6192336" class="para"><sup class="para">[33] </sup></a>
Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Law
(1960) 398–407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7362208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7362208" class="para"><sup class="para">[34] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6221472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6221472" class="para"><sup class="para">[34] </sup></a>
H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7374928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7374928" class="para"><sup class="para">[35] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6234288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6234288" class="para"><sup class="para">[35] </sup></a>
Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
(Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on
Family and TV Study,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1997, B6.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7368208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7368208" class="para"><sup class="para">[36] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6227568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6227568" class="para"><sup class="para">[36] </sup></a>
Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7385968"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7386976"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7389328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7389328" class="para"><sup class="para">[37] </sup></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6245328"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6246336"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6248688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6248688" class="para"><sup class="para">[37] </sup></a>
Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>»</span> E!online,
4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Timeline,</span>»</span> 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7399520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7399520" class="para"><sup class="para">[38] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6258880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6258880" class="para"><sup class="para">[38] </sup></a>
-Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7400288"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7401824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7401824" class="para"><sup class="para">[39] </sup></a>
+Intervju med Daley og Barish. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6259648"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6261184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6261184" class="para"><sup class="para">[39] </sup></a>
ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7468960" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7468960" class="para"><sup class="para">[40] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6328320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6328320" class="para"><sup class="para">[40] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7471968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7471968" class="para"><sup class="para">[41] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6331248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6331248" class="para"><sup class="para">[41] </sup></a>
Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7476624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7476624" class="para"><sup class="para">[42] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6335904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6335904" class="para"><sup class="para">[42] </sup></a>
Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2001), 65–80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7496528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7496528" class="para"><sup class="para">[43] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6355712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6355712" class="para"><sup class="para">[43] </sup></a>
Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
Pot,</span>»</span> New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7467152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7467152" class="para"><sup class="para">[44] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6326512" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6326512" class="para"><sup class="para">[44] </sup></a>
Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7518976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7518976" class="para"><sup class="para">[45] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6378160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6378160" class="para"><sup class="para">[45] </sup></a>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
Strong Overall,</span>»</span> Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#10</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7522640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7522640" class="para"><sup class="para">[46] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6381824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6381824" class="para"><sup class="para">[46] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7525504"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7526512"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7527264"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7528016"></a> Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6384688"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6385696"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6386448"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6387200"></a> Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's
Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like
stor aksept for ansatte som blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i
Olafson, en <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å
ha hatt en personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om
noen av temaene og folkene som han dekket.</span>»</span>)
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7564656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7564656" class="para"><sup class="para">[47] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6423840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6423840" class="para"><sup class="para">[47] </sup></a>
Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7575280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7576032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6434464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6435216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaerpolytechnicinstituterpicomputernetworksearchengineof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsearchengines"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxuniversitycomputernetworksppsharingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetsearchenginesusedon"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Høsten 2001</strong></span>, ble Jesse Jordan fra
Oceanside, New York, innrullert som førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York. Hans studieretning ved RPI var
Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien. Den brukte
Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7595408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6454592"></a><p>
Søkemotoren Jesse laget var ikke den første laget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget. Hans
viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje. Jesse endret systemet litt for
å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7598160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6457344"></a><p>
Motoren til Jesse kom på nett i slutten av oktober. I løpet av de følgende
seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
funksjonalitet. I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra. Jesse hadde mer enn
en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7600192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6459376"></a><p>
Dermed listet søkemotorindeksen han produserte opp både bilder, som
studentene kunne legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av notater og
hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer — kort sagt alt som brukerne av
RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en offentlig mappe på sine
datamaskiner.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7601680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7603344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6460864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6462528"></a><p>
Men indeksen listet også opp musikkfiler. Faktisk var en fjerdedel av
filene omtalt i Jesses søkemotor musikkfiler. Men det betyr, naturligvis,
at tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og—slik at dette poenget er helt
noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet. Han var en
ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7612528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsagainststudentfilesharing"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrycopyrightinfringementlawsuitsof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaacopyrightinfringementlawsuitsfiledby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6471712"></a><p>
Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
RPI. Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
ville levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk å
gjøre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7618016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7618880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7619888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7622736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6477200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6478064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6479072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsindividualdefendantsintimidatedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6481920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaintimidationtacticsof"></a><p>
Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat. De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bevisst</span>»</span> hadde brutt åndsverkslovene. De krevde at han
en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve 150 000 dollar per krenkelse. Etter
som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke opphavsrettskrenkelser,
krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst 15 000 000 dollar.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7627360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7628512"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6487072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6487824"></a><p>
Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
situasjoner var lik den til Jesse. Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
saksøkerne nesten 100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span> dollar—seks
ganger det <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
-2001.<a href="#ftn.idp7631568" class="footnote" name="idp7631568"><sup class="footnote">[48]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7633344"></a><p>
+2001.<a href="#ftn.idp6490880" class="footnote" name="idp6490880"><sup class="footnote">[48]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6492656"></a><p>
Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre. De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
onkel var advokat. Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA. De krevde å få vite
hvor mye penger Jesse hadde. Jesse hadde spart opp 12 000 dollar fra
sommerjobber og annet arbeid. De krevde 12 000 dollar for å trekke
saken.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7635008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6494320"></a><p>
RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt. Han
nektet. De ville ha han til å godta en forføyning som i praksis ville gjøre
det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>»</span>) Og gjennom det hele
insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7638016"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6497328"></a><p>
Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene. De ønsket å kjempe.
Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
</p><p>
Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: 250 000 dollar og en sjanse til
å vinne, eller 12 000 dollar og et forlik.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7641536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7642432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7643440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6500848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6501744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6502752"></a><p>
Musikkindustrien insisterer på at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral. La
oss legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen. Hvor er
moralen i et søksmål som dette? Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam. RIAA er
en spesielt mektig lobby. Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer
enn 1 million dollar i året. Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt
betalt. Den gjennomsnittlige innspillingsartist tjener 45 900
-dollar.<a href="#ftn.idp7639952" class="footnote" name="idp7639952"><sup class="footnote">[49]</sup></a> Det er utallige virkemidler som
+dollar.<a href="#ftn.idp6499264" class="footnote" name="idp6499264"><sup class="footnote">[49]</sup></a> Det er utallige virkemidler som
RIAA kan benytte for å påvirke og styre politikken. Så hva er det moralske
-i å ta penger fra en student for å drive en søkemotor?<a href="#ftn.idp7647040" class="footnote" name="idp7647040"><sup class="footnote">[50]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7648704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7649680"></a><p>
+i å ta penger fra en student for å drive en søkemotor?<a href="#ftn.idp6506352" class="footnote" name="idp6506352"><sup class="footnote">[50]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6508016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6508992"></a><p>
23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
for RIAA. Saken mot ham ble trukket. Og slik, ble unggutten som hadde
fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar, en
treklemmer. … Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap. Og han ønsker å
korrigere rullebladet.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7654848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7655712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7656688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7657664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7658720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7659696"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7631568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7631568" class="para"><sup class="para">[48] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp6514080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6514944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6515920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6516896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6517952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6518928"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6490880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6490880" class="para"><sup class="para">[48] </sup></a>
Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7639952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7639952" class="para"><sup class="para">[49] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6499264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6499264" class="para"><sup class="para">[49] </sup></a>
Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
(27–2042—Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7647040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7647040" class="para"><sup class="para">[50] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6506352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6506352" class="para"><sup class="para">[50] </sup></a>
Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and
Punishment,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
10. september 2003, A24.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7663920"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyindevelopmentofcontentindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6523152"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr</strong></span>
å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten deres tillatelse—hvis
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> er tilfelle—da er historien
generasjonens borgerskap—inntil nå.
</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
-Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget opp av flyktende pirater.<a href="#ftn.idp7669216" class="footnote" name="idp7669216"><sup class="footnote">[51]</sup></a> Skapere og regissører flyttet fra østkysten til
+Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget opp av flyktende pirater.<a href="#ftn.idp6528448" class="footnote" name="idp6528448"><sup class="footnote">[51]</sup></a> Skapere og regissører flyttet fra østkysten til
California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
kontrollene som patenter ga den som fant opp å lage film, Thomas Edison.
Disse kontrollene ble utøvet gjennom et monopol-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kartell,</span>»</span> The
var bevegelsen med uavhengige i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere som
brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
undergrunnsmarked.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7675296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7675936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7676688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6534528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6535168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6535920"></a><p>
Med et land som så en kolossal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
nickelodeons, reagerte patentselskapet på uavhengige-bevegelsen med å stifte
General Film Company, et hardhendt datterselskap opprettet for å blokkere
varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
-kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<a href="#ftn.idp7678352" class="footnote" name="idp7678352"><sup class="footnote">[52]</sup></a>
+kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<a href="#ftn.idp6537584" class="footnote" name="idp6537584"><sup class="footnote">[52]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige,</span>»</span> var selskaper som Fox.
Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
-ofte.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7684160" class="footnote" name="idp7684160"><sup class="footnote">[53]</sup></a> Dette fikk de uavhengige
+ofte.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6543392" class="footnote" name="idp6543392"><sup class="footnote">[53]</sup></a> Dette fikk de uavhengige
til å flykte til østkysten. California var fjernt nok fra Edisons
innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
frykte loven. Og lederne blant Hollywoods filmskapere, Fox mest
Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
hvordan krever det at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven
regulerer musikk.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7693264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6552496"></a><p>
På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>»</span> sa loven at jeg måtte betale
for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7695728"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6554960"></a><p>
Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span> ved hjelp av
Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano? Her snublet loven. Det
var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
innspillingene. På grunn av dette hullet i loven, så kunne jeg i effekt
røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7698320"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6557552"></a><p>
Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
å røve. Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
-det,<a class="indexterm" name="idp7701184"></a>
+det,<a class="indexterm" name="idp6560416"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten. En komponist skriver en sang eller
en opera. En utgiver kjøper rettighetene til denne for en høy sum, og
registrerer opphavsretten til den. Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
arbeidet som kommer fra hjernen til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
-om [deres] rettigheter.<a href="#ftn.idp7703648" class="footnote" name="idp7703648"><sup class="footnote">[54]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7706432"></a><p>
+om [deres] rettigheter.<a href="#ftn.idp6562880" class="footnote" name="idp6562880"><sup class="footnote">[54]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6565664"></a><p>
Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, talentet og geniet til amerikanske
-komponister,</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7708032" class="footnote" name="idp7708032"><sup class="footnote">[55]</sup></a> og
+komponister,</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6567264" class="footnote" name="idp6567264"><sup class="footnote">[55]</sup></a> og
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkforlagsbransjen</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i denne
-piratens vold.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7709600" class="footnote" name="idp7709600"><sup class="footnote">[56]</sup></a> Som John Philip
+piratens vold.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6568832" class="footnote" name="idp6568832"><sup class="footnote">[56]</sup></a> Som John Philip
Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de tjener
-penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7711088" class="footnote" name="idp7711088"><sup class="footnote">[57]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7712112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7712864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7713616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
+penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6570320" class="footnote" name="idp6570320"><sup class="footnote">[57]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6571344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6572096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6572848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustrystatutorylicensesystemin"></a><p>
Disse argumentene høres omtrent ut som argumentene fra våre dager. Det samme
gjør argumentene fra den andre siden. Oppfinnerne som utviklet det
automatiske pianoet argumenterte med at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er fullt mulig å vise at
introduksjonen av automatiske musikkspillere ikke har fratatt noen komponist
noe han hadde før det ble introdusert.</span>»</span> I stedet økte maskinene
-salget av noteark.<a href="#ftn.idp7721776" class="footnote" name="idp7721776"><sup class="footnote">[58]</sup></a> Uansett,
+salget av noteark.<a href="#ftn.idp6581008" class="footnote" name="idp6581008"><sup class="footnote">[58]</sup></a> Uansett,
argumenterte oppfinnerne, jobben til kongressen var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å først vurdere
interessen til [folket], som de representerte, og som de skal tjene.</span>»</span>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alt snakk om <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">tyveri</span>’</span>,</span>»</span> skrev sjefsjuristen til
American Graphophone Company, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er kun nonsens, for det finnes ingen
eiendom i musikalske idéer, skriftlig eller kunstnerisk, unntatt det som er
-definert i loven.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7724400" class="footnote" name="idp7724400"><sup class="footnote">[59]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7725648"></a><p>
+definert i loven.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6583632" class="footnote" name="idp6583632"><sup class="footnote">[59]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6584880"></a><p>
Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
komponisten og innspillingsartisten. Kongressen endret loven slik at
tillatelsen. Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed bestemt av Grisham og
åndsverksloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å bruke Grishams verk med
mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7735232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7736208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6594464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6595440"></a><p>
Men loven som styrer innspillinger gir innspillingsartisten mindre. Og
dermed er effekten at loven <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidierer</em></span>
musikkindustrien med et slags piratvirksomhet—ved å gi
betalt, og folket får tilgang til en større mengde musikalsk kreativitet.
Kongressen var faktisk svært eksplisitt i sine grunner for å dele ut denne
rettigheten. Den fryktet monopolmakten til rettighetsinnehaverne, og at
-denne makten skulle kvele påfølgende kreativitet.<a href="#ftn.idp7672880" class="footnote" name="idp7672880"><sup class="footnote">[60]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7740256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7741232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7742208"></a><p>
+denne makten skulle kvele påfølgende kreativitet.<a href="#ftn.idp6532112" class="footnote" name="idp6532112"><sup class="footnote">[60]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6599488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6600464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6601440"></a><p>
Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
innspillinger. Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
mekanisme for å unngå monopol da de tildelte disse rettighetene. De
argumenterer med at resultatet har vært at det har strømmet på med innspilt
musikk, at folket har fått lavere priser, bedre kvalitet og flere
-valg.<a href="#ftn.idp7746384" class="footnote" name="idp7746384"><sup class="footnote">[61]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7748160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7749136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7750112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7751088"></a><p>
+valg.<a href="#ftn.idp6605616" class="footnote" name="idp6605616"><sup class="footnote">[61]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6607392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6608368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6609344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6610320"></a><p>
Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto"></a><p>
Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<a href="#ftn.idp7758000" class="footnote" name="idp7758000"><sup class="footnote">[62]</sup></a> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<a href="#ftn.idp6617232" class="footnote" name="idp6617232"><sup class="footnote">[62]</sup></a> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
hans verk. Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
fremføringen.
komposisjonen fremført av radiostasjonen. Og hvis loven var fullstendig
konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
innspillingsartisten for sitt verk, på samme måten som den betaler
-komponisten av musikken for sitt verk. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7766704"></a>
+komponisten av musikken for sitt verk. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6625936"></a>
</p><p>
innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
betale henne noen ting.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7773056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7774032"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6632288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6633264"></a><p>
Uten tvil kan en argumentere for at innspillingsartistene totalt sett tjener
på dette. I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn fremføringsrettighetene
de sier fra seg. Kanskje. Men selv om det er slik, så gir loven vanligvis
skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget. Ved å gjøre valget for ham eller
henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe uten å betale.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7776160"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6635392"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletelevision"></a><p>
Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
noen gang gjorde—Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
mulig for andre å gi bort.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7780400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7782272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7783024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6639632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6641504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6642256"></a><p>
Kringkastere og opphavsrettsinnehavere var raske til å angripe dette
tyveriet. Rosel Hyde, styreleder i FCC, så praksisen som en slags
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">urettferdig og potensielt ødeleggende
-konkurranse.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7784688" class="footnote" name="idp7784688"><sup class="footnote">[63]</sup></a> Det kan ha vært en
+konkurranse.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6643920" class="footnote" name="idp6643920"><sup class="footnote">[63]</sup></a> Det kan ha vært en
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig interesse</span>»</span> i å øke spredningen til kabel-TV, men som
Douglas Anello, sjefsjurist hos Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere spurte
senator Quentin Burdick om under sitt vitnemål, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dikterer offentlig
-interesse at du kan bruke noen andres eiendom?</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7787840" class="footnote" name="idp7787840"><sup class="footnote">[64]</sup></a> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
+interesse at du kan bruke noen andres eiendom?</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6647072" class="footnote" name="idp6647072"><sup class="footnote">[64]</sup></a> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Den uvanlige tingen med kabel-TV-selskapene er at det er de eneste
selskapene jeg vet om hvor produktet som blir solgt ikke er betalt
-for.<a href="#ftn.idp7789552" class="footnote" name="idp7789552"><sup class="footnote">[65]</sup></a>
+for.<a href="#ftn.idp6648784" class="footnote" name="idp6648784"><sup class="footnote">[65]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
betaler for den. Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
på et svakere ord for å beskrive det. Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
-ville passe.<a href="#ftn.idp7792208" class="footnote" name="idp7792208"><sup class="footnote">[66]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7793424"></a><p>
+ville passe.<a href="#ftn.idp6651440" class="footnote" name="idp6651440"><sup class="footnote">[66]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6652656"></a><p>
Disse var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer,</span>»</span> sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
-skuespillerne</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7795232" class="footnote" name="idp7795232"><sup class="footnote">[67]</sup></a>
+skuespillerne</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6654464" class="footnote" name="idp6654464"><sup class="footnote">[67]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten. Som assisterende justisminister
Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
opphavsrettsbeskyttelse. Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
utvide dette monopolet. … Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
-ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompensasjon.<a href="#ftn.idp7652400" class="footnote" name="idp7652400"><sup class="footnote">[68]</sup></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7800912"></a>
+ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompensasjon.<a href="#ftn.idp6511632" class="footnote" name="idp6511632"><sup class="footnote">[68]</sup></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6660016"></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene for retten. Høyesterett fant to
ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
at kringkasterne ikke kunne utøve vetomakt over den nye
kabel-TV-teknologien. Kabel-TV-selskapene bygde dermed sitt imperium delvis
ved å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7804704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7805680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6663808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6664784"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Disse separate historiene</strong></span> synger en
felles melodi. Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke verdien
fra noen andres kreative eiendom uten tillatelse fra dets skaper—slik
-det stadig oftere beskrives i dag<a href="#ftn.idp7799648" class="footnote" name="idp7799648"><sup class="footnote">[69]</sup></a>
+det stadig oftere beskrives i dag<a href="#ftn.idp6658752" class="footnote" name="idp6658752"><sup class="footnote">[69]</sup></a>
—da er <span class="emphasis"><em>enhver</em></span> industri påvirket av opphavsrett i
dag er et produkt av og de som har nytt godt av ulike former for
piratvirksomhet. Film, plater, radio, kabel-TV. … Listen er lang og
kunne vært lengre. Hver generasjon ønsker piratene fra den forrige
velkommen. Hver generasjon—inntil nå.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7669216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7669216" class="para"><sup class="para">[51] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6528448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6528448" class="para"><sup class="para">[51] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7669600"></a> Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6528832"></a> Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro
for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne ekstraordinære historien. Se også Siva
Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>,
87–93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med
opphavsrett og patent.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7678352" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7678352" class="para"><sup class="para">[52] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6537584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6537584" class="para"><sup class="para">[52] </sup></a>
J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) og
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal
and the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (september 2002), University of
Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working
-Paper No. 159. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7681360"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7684160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7684160" class="para"><sup class="para">[53] </sup></a>
+Paper No. 159. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6540592"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6543392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6543392" class="para"><sup class="para">[53] </sup></a>
Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7703648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7703648" class="para"><sup class="para">[54] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6562880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6562880" class="para"><sup class="para">[54] </sup></a>
Endre og slå sammen lovforslag om å respektere opphavsretten: Høring om
S. 6330 og H.R. 19853 foran (felles)-komiteene om patenter, 59. kongr. 59,
1. sess. (1906) (uttalelse til senator Alfred B. Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota,
formann), gjengitt i <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright
Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South
-Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="idp7705040"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7708032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7708032" class="para"><sup class="para">[55] </sup></a>
+Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976). <a class="indexterm" name="idp6564272"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6567264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6567264" class="para"><sup class="para">[55] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7709600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7709600" class="para"><sup class="para">[56] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6568832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6568832" class="para"><sup class="para">[56] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7711088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7711088" class="para"><sup class="para">[57] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6570320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6570320" class="para"><sup class="para">[57] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
John Philip Sousa, komponist).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7721776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7721776" class="para"><sup class="para">[58] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6581008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6581008" class="para"><sup class="para">[58] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283–84
(uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
Company of New York).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7724400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7724400" class="para"><sup class="para">[59] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6583632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6583632" class="para"><sup class="para">[59] </sup></a>
To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
innlegg fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
Company Association).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7672880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7672880" class="para"><sup class="para">[60] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6532112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6532112" class="para"><sup class="para">[60] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>, E.
Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
Reprints, 1976).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7746384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7746384" class="para"><sup class="para">[61] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6605616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6605616" class="para"><sup class="para">[61] </sup></a>
Endring av åndsverksloven: Rapport som følger H.R. 2512, House Committee on
the Judiciary, 90. Kongr., 1. sess., House Document no. 83, (8. mars 1967).
Jeg er takknemlig til Glenn Brown for å ha gjort meg oppmerksom på denne
-rapporten.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7758000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7758000" class="para"><sup class="para">[62] </sup></a>
+rapporten.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6617232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6617232" class="para"><sup class="para">[62] </sup></a>
Se 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, seksjon 106 og 110. I
begynnelsen skrev noen plateselskaper <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke lisensiert for
Cir. 1940). Se også Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
-70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7761536"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7762544"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7784688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7784688" class="para"><sup class="para">[63] </sup></a>
+70 (2003): 281. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6620768"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6621776"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6643920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6643920" class="para"><sup class="para">[63] </sup></a>
Endring i åndsverksloven—Kabel-TV: Høring om S. 1006 foran
underkomiteen om patenter, varemerker og opphavsrett av Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, 89. Kongr., 2. sess., 78 (1966) (uttalelse fra Rosel H. Hyde,
-styreleder i den føderale kommunikasjonskommisjonen.<a class="indexterm" name="idp7781040"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7787840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7787840" class="para"><sup class="para">[64] </sup></a>
+styreleder i den føderale kommunikasjonskommisjonen.<a class="indexterm" name="idp6640272"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6647072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6647072" class="para"><sup class="para">[64] </sup></a>
Endring i åndsverksloven—Kabel-TV, 116 (uttalelse fra Douglas
A. Anello, sjefsjuristen i Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7789552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7789552" class="para"><sup class="para">[65] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6648784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6648784" class="para"><sup class="para">[65] </sup></a>
Endring i åndsverksloven—Kabel-TV, 126 (uttalelse fra Ernest
W. Jennes, sjefsjurist ved Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7792208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7792208" class="para"><sup class="para">[66] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6651440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6651440" class="para"><sup class="para">[66] </sup></a>
Endring i åndsverksloven—Kabel-TV, 169 (felles uttalelse fra Arthur
B. Krim, president i United Artists Corp. og John Sinn, president i United
Artists Television Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7795232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7795232" class="para"><sup class="para">[67] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6654464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6654464" class="para"><sup class="para">[67] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 209 (uttalelse fra Charlton Heston,
-president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="idp7795744"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7652400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7652400" class="para"><sup class="para">[68] </sup></a>
+president i Screen Actors Guild). <a class="indexterm" name="idp6654976"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6511632" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6511632" class="para"><sup class="para">[68] </sup></a>
Copyright Law Revision—CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
-fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="idp7799776"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7799648" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7799648" class="para"><sup class="para">[69] </sup></a>
+fungerende assisterende justisministeren). <a class="indexterm" name="idp6658880"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6658752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6658752" class="para"><sup class="para">[69] </sup></a>
Se for eksempel National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
er betydelig mer tvetydig enn direkte kopiering, og lovverket bør ta hensyn
til denne tvetydigheten, slik det ofte har gjort tidligere.
-</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7817904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
+</p><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6677104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
Over hele verden, men spesielt i Asia og Øst-Europa, er det selskaper som
ikke gjør annet enn å ta andre folks opphavsrettsbeskyttede innhold,
kopierer det og selger det—alt uten tillatelse fra
opphavsrettseieren. Musikkindustrien estimerer at de taper rundt 4,6
-milliarder dollar hvert år på fysisk piratvirksomhet <a href="#ftn.idp7811104" class="footnote" name="idp7811104"><sup class="footnote">[70]</sup></a> (det blir ca. en av tre CD-er solgt på
+milliarder dollar hvert år på fysisk piratvirksomhet <a href="#ftn.idp6670304" class="footnote" name="idp6670304"><sup class="footnote">[70]</sup></a> (det blir ca. en av tre CD-er solgt på
verdensbasis). MPAA estimerer at de taper 3 milliarder dollar på
verdensbasis på piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
Men likevel, hvis et land skal behandles som selvstendig da er landets lover
landets lover, uavhengig av deres kilde. De internasjonale lovene som disse
landene lever etter gir dem noen muligheter til å slippe unna byrden til
-immaterielle rettighetslover.<a href="#ftn.idp7829200" class="footnote" name="idp7829200"><sup class="footnote">[71]</sup></a> Etter
+immaterielle rettighetslover.<a href="#ftn.idp6688400" class="footnote" name="idp6688400"><sup class="footnote">[71]</sup></a> Etter
mitt syn burde flere utviklingsland utnytte den muligheten, men når de ikke
gjør det bør deres lover likevel respekteres. Og i følge lovene i disse
landene, er piratvirksomhet galt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7833392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6692592"></a><p>
Alternativt, så kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten ved å
legge merke til at det uansett ikke skader industrien. Kineserne som får
tilgang til amerikanske CD-er for 50 cent pr. utgave er ikke folk som ville
kjøpt disse CD-ene for 15 dollar per utgave. Så ingen har egentlig noe
-mindre penger enn de ellers ville hatt.<a href="#ftn.idp7835040" class="footnote" name="idp7835040"><sup class="footnote">[72]</sup></a>
+mindre penger enn de ellers ville hatt.<a href="#ftn.idp6694240" class="footnote" name="idp6694240"><sup class="footnote">[72]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Dette er ofte riktig (selv om jeg har venner som har kjøpt flere tusen
piratkopierte DVDer og som helt klart har nok penger til å betale for
fra når du tar en MP3 fra et datanettverk, der det ikke blir en mindre CD
som kan selges. Fysikken til røving av det uhåndgripelige er forskjellig
fra fysikken til røving av det håndgripelige.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7840688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6699888"></a><p>
Dette er likevel et veldig dårlig argument. For selv om opphavsretten er en
eiendomsrett av en veldig spesiell type, så <span class="emphasis"><em>er</em></span> det en
det systemet er skikkelig balansert opp mot teknologien på et gitt
tidspunkt, så er det galt å ta eiendom uten tillatelse fra eiendomseieren.
Det er nøyaktig hva <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> betyr.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7845152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7845904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7846912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7847792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7848544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7849296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7850304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7851056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7852064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6704352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6705104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6706112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6706992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6707744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6708496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6709504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6710256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6711264"></a><p>
Til slutt kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten med argumentet
om at piratvirksomheten faktisk hjelper opphavsrettseieren. Når kineserne
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Windows, så gjør det kineserne avhengig av
brukte det fritt tilgjengelige operativsystemet GNU/Linux, så ville disse
kinesiske brukerne ikke til slutt kjøpe Microsoft. Uten piratvirksomheten
ville dermed Microsoft tape.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7855536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6714736"></a><p>
Det er også noe sant i dette argumentet. Å gjøre folk avhengig er en god
strategi. Mange selskaper praktiserer det. Noen gjør det godt på grunn av
det. Juss-studenter, for eksempel, får gratis tilgang til de to største
studentene vil bli så vant til deres tjenester at de vil ønske å bruke deres
tjeneste og ikke konkurrentens når de blir advokater (og må betale høy
abonnementsavgift).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7857568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7858320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7859072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7859824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6716768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6717520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6718272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6719024"></a><p>
Likevel er ikke dette argumentet spesielt overbevistende. Vi gir ikke
alkoholikeren et forsvar når han stjeler sin første øl, kun på grunn av at
det vil gjøre det mer sannsynlig at han vil betale for de tre neste. I
Nøkkelen til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> som loven tar sikte på å
skvise er den bruken som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">robber forfatteren for
-profitten.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7871840" class="footnote" name="idp7871840"><sup class="footnote">[73]</sup></a> Dette betyr vi må
+profitten.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6731040" class="footnote" name="idp6731040"><sup class="footnote">[73]</sup></a> Dette betyr vi må
avgjøre hvorvidt og hvor mye p2p-deling skader før vi vet hvor sterkt loven
bør søke å enten hindre det eller finne et alternativ for å sikre
forfatteren sin profitt.
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp
7874160"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7874912"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idxnapster"></a> Peer-to-peer-deling ble
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp
6733360"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6734112"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idxnapster"></a> Peer-to-peer-deling ble
gjort berømt av Napster. Men oppfinnerne av Napster-teknologien hadde ikke
gjort noen store teknologiske nyskapninger. Som ethvert stort steg i
nyskapningen på Internett (og, kan det argumenteres for, utenfor
-Internett<a class="indexterm" name="idp7877408"></a>) hadde Shawn Fanning og hans
+Internett<a class="indexterm" name="idp6736608"></a>) hadde Shawn Fanning og hans
ansatte ganske enkelt satt sammen deler som hadde blitt utviklet uavhengig
av hverandre.
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7878672"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7879424"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7880432"></a> Resultatet var en
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6737872"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6738624"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6739632"></a> Resultatet var en
eksplosjon. Etter lansering i juli 1999, samlet Napster over 10 millioner
brukere i løpet av ni måneder. Etter atten måneder var det nesten 80
-millioner registrerte brukere av systemet.<a class="indexterm" name="idp7881872"></a> Rettsaker skjøt Napster raskt ned, men andre tjenester dukket opp
+millioner registrerte brukere av systemet.<a class="indexterm" name="idp6741072"></a> Rettsaker skjøt Napster raskt ned, men andre tjenester dukket opp
for å overta plassen. (Kazaa er for tiden den mest populære p2p-tjenesten.
Den skryter av over 100 millioner medlemmer.) Disse tjenestene har en
anderledes arkitektur selv om de ikke er veldig forskjellige i funksjon:
ubegrenset antall andre brukere. Med et p2p-system kan du dele dine
favorittsanger med dine beste venner— eller dine 20 000 beste
venner.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7861648"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6720848"></a><p>
I følge en rekke estimater har en stor andel av amerikanere testet
fildelings-teknologi. En studie fra Ipsos-Insight i september 2002
estimerte at 60 millioner amerikanere har lastet ned musikk—28 prosent
-av amerikanerne over 12.<a href="#ftn.idp7883264" class="footnote" name="idp7883264"><sup class="footnote">[74]</sup></a> En
+av amerikanerne over 12.<a href="#ftn.idp6742464" class="footnote" name="idp6742464"><sup class="footnote">[74]</sup></a> En
spørreundersøkelse fra NPD-gruppen sitert i <em class="citetitle">The New York
Times</em> estimerte at 43 millioner innbyggere brukte
-fildelingsnettverk for å utveksle innhold i mai 2003.<a href="#ftn.idp7887344" class="footnote" name="idp7887344"><sup class="footnote">[75]</sup></a> De aller fleste av dem er ikke unger. Uansett hva
+fildelingsnettverk for å utveksle innhold i mai 2003.<a href="#ftn.idp6746544" class="footnote" name="idp6746544"><sup class="footnote">[75]</sup></a> De aller fleste av dem er ikke unger. Uansett hva
de egentlige tallene er, en massiv mengde innhold blir <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tatt</span>»</span>
på disse nettverkene. Enkelheten og den lave kostnaden til
fildelingsnettverkene har inspirert millioner til å nyte musikk på måter de
Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold. Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
fire typer.
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7893152"></a><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6752352"></a><p>
Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatning for å kjøpe innhold.
</p><p>
La oss starte med noen enkle men viktige poeng. Fra lovens perspektiv er
det kun type-D-deling som helt klart er lovlig. Fra et økonomisk perspektiv
-er det kun type-A-deling som helt klart forårsaker skade.<a href="#ftn.idp7902176" class="footnote" name="idp7902176"><sup class="footnote">[76]</sup></a> Type-B-deling er ulovlig men gir klare fordeler.
+er det kun type-A-deling som helt klart forårsaker skade.<a href="#ftn.idp6761376" class="footnote" name="idp6761376"><sup class="footnote">[76]</sup></a> Type-B-deling er ulovlig men gir klare fordeler.
Type-C-deling er ulovlig, men bra for samfunnet (siden mer eksponering til
musikk er bra) og skadelig for artistene (siden verket ellers ikke er
tilgjengelig. Så det er vanskelig å avgjøre hvordan deling kommer ut totalt
for platebransjen å skylde på teknologi for all nedgang i salg. Historien
til kassettopptak er et godt eksempel. Som det ble formulert i en studie av
Cap Gemini Ernst & Young: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I stedet for å utforske denne nye
-populære teknologien, sloss selskapene imot den.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7909248" class="footnote" name="idp7909248"><sup class="footnote">[77]</sup></a> Selskapene påsto at hvert album som ble tatt opp på
+populære teknologien, sloss selskapene imot den.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6768160" class="footnote" name="idp6768160"><sup class="footnote">[77]</sup></a> Selskapene påsto at hvert album som ble tatt opp på
kassett var et album som ikke ble solgt, og da platesalget falt med 11,4
prosent i 1981, påsto industrien at dets poeng var bevist. Teknologien var
problemet, og forbud eller regulering av teknologien var svaret.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7913952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6772864"></a><p>
Ikke lenge etterpå, og før kongressen fikk muligheten til å innføre
reguleringer, ble MTV lansert, og industrien fikk et
rekordoppsving. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Til slutt,</span>»</span> konkluderte Cap Gemini, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var
ikke <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">krisen</span>’</span> … forårsaket av de som tok opp på
kassett—som ikke [tok slutt etter at MTV dukket opp]—men hadde i
stor grad vært resultatet av en stagnasjon i musikknyskapningen hos de store
-selskapene.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7836256" class="footnote" name="idp7836256"><sup class="footnote">[78]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7918352"></a><p>
+selskapene.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6695456" class="footnote" name="idp6695456"><sup class="footnote">[78]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6777264"></a><p>
Men det at industrien har tatt feil før betyr ikke at de tar feil i dag.
For å evaluere den virkelige trusselen som p2p-deling representerer for
industrien spesielt, og samfunnet generelt—eller i hvert fall det
</p><p>
I 2002 rapporterte RIAA at CD-salg hadde falt med 8,9 prosent, fra 882
millioner til 803 millioner enheter, og inntektene hadde falt 6,7
-prosent.<a href="#ftn.idp7926016" class="footnote" name="idp7926016"><sup class="footnote">[79]</sup></a> Dette bekrefter en trend fra
+prosent.<a href="#ftn.idp6784928" class="footnote" name="idp6784928"><sup class="footnote">[79]</sup></a> Dette bekrefter en trend fra
de siste årene. RIAA skylder på piratvirksomhet over Internett for denne
trenden, selv om det er mange andre årsaker som kan forklare denne
reduksjonen. SoundScan rapporterte for eksempel om en reduksjon på over 20
tvil årsaken til noe av nedgangen i salget. Stigende priser kan også ha
bidratt til noe av tapet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fra 1999 til 201 steg den gjennomsnittlige
prisen for en CD med 7,2 prosent, fra 13,04 dollar til 14,19
-dollar.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7931104" class="footnote" name="idp7931104"><sup class="footnote">[80]</sup></a> Konkurranse fra andre
+dollar.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6790016" class="footnote" name="idp6790016"><sup class="footnote">[80]</sup></a> Konkurranse fra andre
typer media kan også forklare noe av nedgangen. Som Jane Black i
<em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> kommenterer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Lydsporet for filmen
<em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> har en listepris på 19,98 dollar. Du
-kan få hele filmen [på DVD] for 19,99 dollar.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7935376" class="footnote" name="idp7935376"><sup class="footnote">[81]</sup></a>
+kan få hele filmen [på DVD] for 19,99 dollar.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6794288" class="footnote" name="idp6794288"><sup class="footnote">[81]</sup></a>
</p><p>
antallet solgte CD-er ble lastet ned gratis, og salgsinntektene kun ble
redusert med 6,7 prosent, så er det en stor forskjell mellom å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">laste
ned en sang og å stjele en CD.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7940704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6799616"></a><p>
Dette er skadene—påståtte og muligens overdrevende, men la oss anta at
de er reelle. Hva er fordelene? Fildeling påfører muligens kostnader for
plateindustrien. Hva slags verdi gir det i tillegg til disse kostnadene?
En fordel er type-C-deling—å gjøre innhold tilgjengelig som teknisk
sett fortsatt er opphavsrettsbeskyttet men som ikke lenger er kommersielt
tilgjengelig. Dette er ikke en liten kategori med innhold. Det er millioner
-av spor som ikke lenger er kommersielt tilgjengelig.<a href="#ftn.idp7941936" class="footnote" name="idp7941936"><sup class="footnote">[82]</sup></a> Og mens det kan tenkes at noe av dette innholdet
+av spor som ikke lenger er kommersielt tilgjengelig.<a href="#ftn.idp6800848" class="footnote" name="idp6800848"><sup class="footnote">[82]</sup></a> Og mens det kan tenkes at noe av dette innholdet
ikke er tilgjengelig fordi artisten som laget innholdet ikke ønsker at det
blir gjort tilgjengelig, så er det meste av dette utilgjengelig kun fordi
forlaget eller distributøren har bestemt at det ikke lenger gir økonomisk
mening <span class="emphasis"><em>for selskapet</em></span> å gjøre det tilgjengelig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7946352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6805264"></a><p>
I den virkelige verden—lenge før Internett—hadde markedet et
enkelt svar på dette problemet: bruktbok- og bruktplate-butikker. Det er
-tusenvis av butikker for brukte bøker og plater i Amerika i dag.<a href="#ftn.idp7947616" class="footnote" name="idp7947616"><sup class="footnote">[83]</sup></a> Disse butikkene kjøper innhold fra eierne og selger
+tusenvis av butikker for brukte bøker og plater i Amerika i dag.<a href="#ftn.idp6806528" class="footnote" name="idp6806528"><sup class="footnote">[83]</sup></a> Disse butikkene kjøper innhold fra eierne og selger
så videre innholdet de kjøpte. Og i følge amerikansk åndsverkslov, når de
kjøper og selger dette innholdet, <span class="emphasis"><em>selv om innholdet fortsatt er
vernet av åndsverksloven</em></span>, så får ikke opphavsrettseieren et
tjener penger på innholdet de selger, men på samme måte som med
kabel-TV-selskapene før lovbestemt lisensiering må de ikke betale
opphavsrettseierene for innholdet de selger.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7954496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7955504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6813408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6814416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson"></a><p>
Type-C-deling har dermed veldig mye til felles med bruktbok- og
bruktplatebutikker. Det er naturligvis også veldig forskjellig, fordi
personen som gjør innhold tilgjengelig ikke tjener penger på å gjøre
bedre fører ikke til at det ville vært en god ide å forby bruktbokhandlere.
Eller sagt på en annen måte, hvis du tror type-C-deling burde vært stoppet,
mener du også at biblioteker og bruktbokhandler også burde vært stengt?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7962528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7963280"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6821440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6822192"></a><p>
Til slutt, og kanskje mest viktig, gjør fildelingsnettverk type-D-deling
mulig—delingen av innhold som opphavsrettseierne ønsker å få delt
den. Doctorows innhold er type-D-innhold. Hvis delingsnettverkene gjør det
mulig å spre verket hans, så kommer både han og samfunnet bedre ut. (Faktisk
så kommer de mye bedre ut: det er en god bok!)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7967344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6826256"></a><p>
Det samme gjelder for allemannseide (public domain) verk: Denne delingen
gagner samfunnet uten noen juridisk skade mot forfattere i det hele
tatt. Hvis innsatsen for å løse problemet med type-A-deling ødelegger
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er hvor mye vi har tapt,</span>»</span> så må vi også spørre oss
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvor mye har samfunnet fått igjen fra p2p-deling? Hva gjør oss mer
effektive? Hva er innholdet som ellers ville være utilgjengelig?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7970928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6829840"></a><p>
For til forskjell fra piratvirksomheten jeg beskrev i første del av dette
kapittelet, er mye av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> som fildeling gjør
mulig klart lovlig og bra. Og i likhet med piratvirksomheten jeg beskrev i
utviklet teknologi som ville blokkere for 99,4 prosent av identifisert
opphavsrettsbrytende materiale, fortalte regionsdomstolen advokatene til
Napster at 99,4 prosent var ikke godt nok. Napster måtte få
-opphavsrettsbruddene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ned til null.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7976656" class="footnote" name="idp7976656"><sup class="footnote">[84]</sup></a>
+opphavsrettsbruddene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ned til null.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6835568" class="footnote" name="idp6835568"><sup class="footnote">[84]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Hvis 99,4 prosent ikke er godt nok, så er dette en krig mot
fildelingsteknologier, og ikke en krig mot opphavsrettsbrudd. Det er ikke
møte den nye teknologien. I denne justeringen har loven forsøkt å sikre
legitime rettigheter til skaperne mens den beskytter nyskapning. Noen gang
har det gitt mer rettigheter til skaperne, og noen ganger mindre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7981376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7982384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7989088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7990176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7991184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7992192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7993200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7993952"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6840288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6841296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusonrecordingindustry2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonmusicrecordings2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawstatutorylicensesin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6848000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6849088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6850096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6851104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6852112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6852864"></a><p>
Dermed, slik vi har sett, når <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekanisk reproduksjon</span>»</span> truet
interessene til komponister, balanserte kongressen rettighetene til
komponistene mot interessene til plateindustrien. Den ga rettigheter til
kongressen med å gi kringkasterne rett til betaling, men på et nivå fastsatt
av loven. De ga på samme måte kabel-TV-selskapene rett til innholdet, så
lenge de betalte den lovbestemte prisen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7999408"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6858320"></a><p>
subsidiering til kabel-TV. Dermed valgte kongressen en sti som ville sikre
<span class="emphasis"><em>kompensasjon</em></span> uten å gi fortiden (kringkasterne)
kontroll over fremtiden (kabel-TV).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8002576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8003440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8004416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbetamax"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6861488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6862352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6863328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbetamax"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><p>
Samme år som kongressen valgte denne balansen, gikk to store produsenter og
distributører av filminnhold til sak mot en annen teknologi, Det var
Betamax, video-spilleren og -opptakeren som Sony hadde produsert. Disneys og
opphavsrettsbeskyttede filmer og programmer. Sony hadde derfor fordel av
opphavsrettsbruddene til sine kunder og skulle derfor, påsto Disney og
Universal, være delvis ansvarlig for disse bruddene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8010000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6868912"></a><p>
Det er noe i påstandene til Disney og Universal. Sony valgte å utforme sin
maskin slik at det var veldig enkelt å ta opp TV-programmer. De kunne ha
utformet systemet sitt for å minimere muligheten for opphavsrettsbrudd. Det
gjorde de ikke, og på grunn av dette ville Disney og Universal holde dem
ansvarlig for arkitekturen de valgte.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8014768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6873680"></a><p>
MPAA-presidenten Jack Valenti ble studioenes mest synlige
forkjemper. Valenti kalte videospillerne for
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">*bendelormer*/*båndorm*</span>»</span> (engelsk: tapeworm). Han advarte om
at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når det er 20, 30, 40 millioner av disse videospillerne i landet,
vil vi bli invadert av millioner av <span class="quote">‘<span class="quote">*bendelormer*</span>’</span> som spiser
i vei i hjertet og essensen til den mest verdifulle eiendelen som
-opphavsrettseieren har, hans opphavsrett.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8017536" class="footnote" name="idp8017536"><sup class="footnote">[85]</sup></a> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En må ikke være opplært i sofistikert
+opphavsrettseieren har, hans opphavsrett.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6876448" class="footnote" name="idp6876448"><sup class="footnote">[85]</sup></a> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En må ikke være opplært i sofistikert
markedsføring eller kreativ vurdering,</span>»</span> fortalte han kongressen,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for å forstå ødeleggelsen av etter-kino-markedet forårsaket av de
hundrevis av millioner opptak som vil seriøst påvirke fremtiden til det
kreative miljøet i dette landet. Det er ganske enkelt et spørsmål om
-grunnleggende økonomi og enkel sunn fornuft.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8020176" class="footnote" name="idp8020176"><sup class="footnote">[86]</sup></a> Og ganske riktig, viser senere spørreundersøkelser,
+grunnleggende økonomi og enkel sunn fornuft.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6879088" class="footnote" name="idp6879088"><sup class="footnote">[86]</sup></a> Og ganske riktig, viser senere spørreundersøkelser,
45 prosent av videospillereierne hadde filmbiblioteker som inneholdt ti
-filmer eller mer.<a href="#ftn.idp8021328" class="footnote" name="idp8021328"><sup class="footnote">[87]</sup></a> — en bruk som
+filmer eller mer.<a href="#ftn.idp6880240" class="footnote" name="idp6880240"><sup class="footnote">[87]</sup></a> — en bruk som
retten senere ville avgjøre ikke var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig.</span>»</span> Ved å
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">*tillate videospillereierne å kopiere fritt ved hjelp av et unntak
fra brudd på opphavsrettsloven uten å lage en mekanisme for å kompensere
opphavsrettseierne*,</span>»</span> forklarte Valenti, så ville kongressen
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta fra eierne selve essensen i sin eiendom: den eksklusive retten til
a kontrollere hvem som kan bruke verkene deres, det vil si, hvem som kan
-kopiere dem og dermed nyte godt at deres reproduksjon.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8024576" class="footnote" name="idp8024576"><sup class="footnote">[88]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8025584"></a><p>
+kopiere dem og dermed nyte godt at deres reproduksjon.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6883488" class="footnote" name="idp6883488"><sup class="footnote">[88]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6884496"></a><p>
Det tok åtte år før denne saken ble avgjort av høyesterett. I mellomtiden
hadde den niende ankekrets, som har Hollywood i sin jurisdiksjon—det
den ledende dommeren Alex Kozinski, som er medlem i den domstolen, omtaler
teknologien—som Jack Valenti hadde omtalt som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Boston-kveleren
for amerikansk filmindustri</span>»</span> (verre enn dette, det var en
<span class="emphasis"><em>japansk</em></span> Boston-kveler for amerikansk
-filmindustri)— en ulovlig teknologi.<a href="#ftn.idp8027872" class="footnote" name="idp8027872"><sup class="footnote">[89]</sup></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8030128"></a>
+filmindustri)— en ulovlig teknologi.<a href="#ftn.idp6886784" class="footnote" name="idp6886784"><sup class="footnote">[89]</sup></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6889040"></a>
</p><p>
Men høyesterett gjorde om avgjørelsen til niende ankekrets. Og i sin
opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale. Kongressen har den konstituelle
autoriteten og institusjonsevnen til å ta fullt hensyn til de forskjellige
sammensetningene av konkurrerende interesser som uunngåelig blir involvert
-av slik ny teknologi.<a href="#ftn.idp8033216" class="footnote" name="idp8033216"><sup class="footnote">[90]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8035008"></a><p>
+av slik ny teknologi.<a href="#ftn.idp6892128" class="footnote" name="idp6892128"><sup class="footnote">[90]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6893920"></a><p>
Kongressen ble bedt om å svare på avgjørelsen fra Høyesterett. Men på samme
måte som med appellen fra plateartistene om radiokringkastinger, ignorerte
kongressen denne forespørselen. Kongressen var overbevist om at Amerikansk
film fikk nok, på tross av at det her ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tatt.</span>»</span> Hvis vi
samler disse saken, trer et mønster frem:
-</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Tilfelle</th><th align="left">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span></th><th align="left">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="left">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Innspillinger</td><td align="left">Komponister</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Plateartister</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kabel-TV</td><td align="left">Kringkastere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Video-spiller / -opptaker</td><td align="left">Filmskapere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8049568"></a><p>
+</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Tilfelle</th><th align="left">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span></th><th align="left">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="left">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Innspillinger</td><td align="left">Komponister</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Plateartister</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kabel-TV</td><td align="left">Kringkastere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Video-spiller / -opptaker</td><td align="left">Filmskapere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6908480"></a><p>
I hvert tilfelle gjennom vår historie har ny teknologi endret hvordan
-innhold ble distribuert.<a href="#ftn.idp8051008" class="footnote" name="idp8051008"><sup class="footnote">[91]</sup></a> I hvert
+innhold ble distribuert.<a href="#ftn.idp6909920" class="footnote" name="idp6909920"><sup class="footnote">[91]</sup></a> I hvert
tilfelle, gjennom hele vår historie, har den endringen ført til at noen ble
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjer</span>»</span> på noen andres verk.
</p><p>
I hvert tilfelle tillot kongressen noe ny teknologi å ha fordel av innhold
laget tidligere. Den balanserte interessene på spill.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8059744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6918656"></a><p>
Når du tenker over disse eksemplene, og de andre eksemplene som utgjør de
første fire kapittelene i denne delen, så gir denne balansen mening. Var
Walt Disney en pirat? Ville doujinshi være bedre hvis skaperne måtte be om
millioner dollar i erstatning. Ville det ha vært bedre om Edison hadde
kontrollert all film? Burde et hvert cover-band måtte hyre inn en advokat
for å få tillatelse til å spille inn en sang?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8062224"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6921136"></a><p>
Vi kunne svart ja på hvert av disse spørsmålene, men vår tradisjon har svart
nei. I vår tradisjon, slik høyesterett uttalte, har opphavsretten
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">aldri gitt opphavsrettseieren fullstendig kontroll over all mulig
-bruk av hans verk.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8064064" class="footnote" name="idp8064064"><sup class="footnote">[92]</sup></a> I stedet har
+bruk av hans verk.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6922976" class="footnote" name="idp6922976"><sup class="footnote">[92]</sup></a> I stedet har
de spesifikke bruksområder som loven regulerer vært definert ved å balansere
de goder som kommer fra å dele ut en eksklusiv rettighet mot ulempene en
slik eksklusiv rettighet skaper. Og denne balanseringen har historisk vært
nettverk. Utviklet videre så kan de gjøre nettverkene mye mer effektive.
Likevel kan disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potensielle fordelene for folket,</span>»</span> som John
Schwartz skriver i <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bli
-forsinket av p2p-kampen.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8070704" class="footnote" name="idp8070704"><sup class="footnote">[93]</sup></a>
+forsinket av p2p-kampen.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6929616" class="footnote" name="idp6929616"><sup class="footnote">[93]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Men når noen</strong></span> begynner å snakke om
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse,</span>»</span> kommer opphavsrettskrigerne med et annet argument.
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7811104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7811104" class="para"><sup class="para">[70] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6670304" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6670304" class="para"><sup class="para">[70] </sup></a>
Se IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#14</a>. Se også Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14. februar 2003, 11.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7829200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7829200" class="para"><sup class="para">[71] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6688400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6688400" class="para"><sup class="para">[71] </sup></a>
Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
tillatelse fra patentinnehaveren. Utviklingsland kan være i stand til å
bruke dette til å få fordelene fra utenlandske patenter til lavere priser.
Dette er en lovende strategi for utviklingsland innenfor
-TRIPS-rammeverket. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7722416"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7831984"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7835040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7835040" class="para"><sup class="para">[72] </sup></a>
+TRIPS-rammeverket. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6581648"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6691184"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6694240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6694240" class="para"><sup class="para">[72] </sup></a>
For en analyse av den økonomiske effekten av kopieringsteknologi, se Stan
Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
verdien av verket vil være neglisjerbart. Et åpenbart tilfelle er der
individet som tar nyter godt av piratvirksomheten ikke ville ha kjøpt
originalen selv om piratvirksomhet ikke var en mulighet.</span>»</span> Ibid.,
-149. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7837024"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7871840" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7871840" class="para"><sup class="para">[73] </sup></a>
+149. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6696224"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6731040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6731040" class="para"><sup class="para">[73] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7883264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7883264" class="para"><sup class="para">[74] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6742464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6742464" class="para"><sup class="para">[74] </sup></a>
Distribution</em> (september 2002), som rapporterer at 28 prosent av
amerikanere eldre enn tolv år hadde lastet musikk ned fra Internett og 30
prosent hadde lyttet til digitale musikkfiler lagred på sine datamaskiner.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7887344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7887344" class="para"><sup class="para">[75] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6746544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6746544" class="para"><sup class="para">[75] </sup></a>
Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6. juni 2003, A1.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7902176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7902176" class="para"><sup class="para">[76] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6761376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6761376" class="para"><sup class="para">[76] </sup></a>
Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
-148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7836000"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7909248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7909248" class="para"><sup class="para">[77] </sup></a>
+148–49. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6695200"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6768160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6768160" class="para"><sup class="para">[77] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7909632"></a> Se Cap Gemini Ernst & Young,
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6768544"></a> Se Cap Gemini Ernst & Young,
<em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model
Crisis</em> (2003), 3. Denne rapporten beskriver musikkindustriens
innsats for å stigmatisere den voksende praksis med å ta opp på kassett på
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, oktober 1989),
-145–56. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp7836256" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7836256" class="para"><sup class="para">[78] </sup></a>
+145–56. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp6695456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6695456" class="para"><sup class="para">[78] </sup></a>
U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7926016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7926016" class="para"><sup class="para">[79] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6784928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6784928" class="para"><sup class="para">[79] </sup></a>
Se Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
utsendingene). Musikkindustrien på verdensbasis har gått ned fra å være en
39 milliarder dollars industri i 2000 til å bli en 32 milliarder dollars
industri i 2002 (basert på US dollarverdi for utsendinger.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7931104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7931104" class="para"><sup class="para">[80] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6790016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6790016" class="para"><sup class="para">[80] </sup></a>
Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>»</span> BusinessWeek online,
-13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7932960"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7935376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7935376" class="para"><sup class="para">[81] </sup></a>
+13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6791872"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6794288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6794288" class="para"><sup class="para">[81] </sup></a>
ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7941936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7941936" class="para"><sup class="para">[82] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6800848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6800848" class="para"><sup class="para">[82] </sup></a>
Et estimat forteller at 75 prosent av musikken gitt ut av de store
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 107. kongr., 1. sesj. (3. april 2001)
(forberedt innlegg av the Future of Music Coalition), tilgjengelig fra
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7947616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7947616" class="para"><sup class="para">[83] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6806528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6806528" class="para"><sup class="para">[83] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp7948800"></a> Mens det ikke finnes noen gode
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6807712"></a> Mens det ikke finnes noen gode
estimater over antallet bruktplatebutikker, så var det i 2002 7 7198
bruktbokhandler i USA, en økning på 20 prosent siden 1993. Se Book Hunter
Press, <em class="citetitle">The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book
Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey Results,</span>»</span>
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#20</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7976656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7976656" class="para"><sup class="para">[84] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6835568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6835568" class="para"><sup class="para">[84] </sup></a>
Se referat fra forhandlingene, I Re: Napster Copyright Litigation side 34-35
#21</a>. For en oppsummering av søksmålet og dets effekt på Napster, se
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 id="ftn.idp8017536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8017536" class="para"><sup class="para">[85] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6876448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6876448" class="para"><sup class="para">[85] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): høring om S. 1758 foran
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97. kongr., 1. and 2. sess., 459
(1982) (vitnesbyrd fra Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
of America, Inc.).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8020176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8020176" class="para"><sup class="para">[86] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6879088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6879088" class="para"><sup class="para">[86] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8021328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8021328" class="para"><sup class="para">[87] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6880240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6880240" class="para"><sup class="para">[87] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8024576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8024576" class="para"><sup class="para">[88] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6883488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6883488" class="para"><sup class="para">[88] </sup></a>
Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (vitnesbyrd fra
Jack Valenti).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8027872" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8027872" class="para"><sup class="para">[89] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6886784" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6886784" class="para"><sup class="para">[89] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8033216" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8033216" class="para"><sup class="para">[90] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6892128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6892128" class="para"><sup class="para">[90] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8051008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8051008" class="para"><sup class="para">[91] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6909920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6909920" class="para"><sup class="para">[91] </sup></a>
Dette er de viktigste forekomstene i vår historie, men det er også andre
tilfeller. For eksempel var teknologien til digitale lydkasetter (DAT)
for gratispassasjerer slik jeg har beskrevet. Se Lessig
<em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. Se også Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the
Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
-Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7978992"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8055040"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8064064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8064064" class="para"><sup class="para">[92] </sup></a>
+Review</em> 70 (2003): 293–96. <a class="indexterm" name="idp6837904"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6913952"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6922976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6922976" class="para"><sup class="para">[92] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8070704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8070704" class="para"><sup class="para">[93] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6929616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6929616" class="para"><sup class="para">[93] </sup></a>
John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>idéen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
hagebordet i bakhagen—ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears, kjøpe
et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8084432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6943344"></a><p>
Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt hagebord og idéer er ting, selv om det er
en viktig forskjell. Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
tilfelle—faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
kopierer hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg,
får selv informasjon uten å ta noe fra meg, på samme måte som den som tenner
sitt lys fra min veike får lys uten å forlate meg i
-mørket.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8085568" class="footnote" name="idp8085568"><sup class="footnote">[94]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8088848"></a><p>
+mørket.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6944480" class="footnote" name="idp6944480"><sup class="footnote">[94]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6947760"></a><p>
Unntakene til fri bruk er idéer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
diskutere her. Her sier lovverket at du ikke kan ta min idé eller uttrykk
form—detaljene, med andre ord—betyr noe. For å få en god
forståelse om hvordan denne praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til
eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å plassere slik <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomen</span>»</span> i
-sin rette sammenheng.<a href="#ftn.idp8092208" class="footnote" name="idp8092208"><sup class="footnote">[95]</sup></a>
+sin rette sammenheng.<a href="#ftn.idp6951120" class="footnote" name="idp6951120"><sup class="footnote">[95]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Min strategi for å gjøre dette er den samme som min strategi i den
foregående del. Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
bli litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske
forskjellig fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal
forstå.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8085568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8085568" class="para"><sup class="para">[94] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6944480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6944480" class="para"><sup class="para">[94] </sup></a>
Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
<em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333–34.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8092208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8092208" class="para"><sup class="para">[95] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6951120" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6951120" class="para"><sup class="para">[95] </sup></a>
Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
materielt. Se Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
Back Together,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003):
373, 429 n. 241.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8105312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8106064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8106816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishcopyrightlawdevelopedfor"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawdevelopmentof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenglandcopyrightlawsdevelopedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxunitedkingdomhistoryofcopyrightlawin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6964224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6964976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6965728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxromeoandjulietshakespeare"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> skrev
<em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han
kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av
Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men Shakespeare er så full av
klisjeer.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8111376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6970288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtonsonjacob"></a><p>
I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
-utgiver i London, John Tonson. <a href="#ftn.idp8114848" class="footnote" name="idp8114848"><sup class="footnote">[96]</sup></a> Tonson
+utgiver i London, John Tonson. <a href="#ftn.idp6973760" class="footnote" name="idp6973760"><sup class="footnote">[96]</sup></a> Tonson
var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
-Conger</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8119712" class="footnote" name="idp8119712"><sup class="footnote">[97]</sup></a>, som kontrollerte
+Conger</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6978624" class="footnote" name="idp6978624"><sup class="footnote">[97]</sup></a>, som kontrollerte
boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
en evigvarende enerett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
eksemplarer av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe;
alle konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8122128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8124368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8125376"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6981040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6983280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6984288"></a><p>
Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
-en ekstraperiode på 22 tilleggsår.<a href="#ftn.idp8127712" class="footnote" name="idp8127712"><sup class="footnote">[98]</sup></a> På
+en ekstraperiode på 22 tilleggsår.<a href="#ftn.idp6986624" class="footnote" name="idp6986624"><sup class="footnote">[98]</sup></a> På
grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ha
falt i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over
verket i 1774?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8130800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8131776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8134240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8134992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6989712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6990688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawcommonvspositive"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6993152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6993904"></a><p>
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 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne,</span>»</span> var det ingen annen
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.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8137632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8138608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6996544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6997520"></a><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
til lover skapt av det lovgivende statsorgen og til lover (prejudikater)
for å erstatte den. Så det egentlige spørsmålet etter at
lisensieringslovene hadde utløpt var om sedvanerett beskyttet en opphavsrett
uavhengig av eventuell positiv lov.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8140928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8141904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8143888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6999840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7000816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7002800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne"></a><p>
Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bokselgere,</span>»</span>
som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
hadde tenkt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8151792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7010704"></a><p>
Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
trykkeretten? Spørsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8153936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8154912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8155664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7012848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7013824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7014576"></a><p>
Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
Shakespeares verk uten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke
begrunnelser finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span>
Shakespeares verk?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8158656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7017568"></a><p>
Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8160576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7019488"></a><p>
Først om opphavsretten / kopiretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet
til å bruke begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopirett</span>»</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i
retten en stor samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir
forfatteren eksklusiv rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere,
eksklusiv rett til å fremføre, og så videre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8164880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8165632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7023792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7024544"></a><p>
Så selv om f.eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verk var evigvarende,
betydde det i følge den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
trykke Shakespeares verk uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
til å trykke—ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8168080"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8170064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7026992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmonopolycopyrightas"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7028976"></a><p>
Selv denne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter,</span>»</span>
spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kongen. Engelskmennene hadde
er mitt monopol, og jeg skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville
beskytte eneretten, men bare så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så
skadene særinteressene kunne skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8175920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8177904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7034832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellersenglish"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7036816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof3"></a><p>
Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
monopol. Det var også et monopol som bokhandlerne hadde. En bokhandler høres
grei og ufarlig ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle
patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>; de var
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
-nødvendig.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8182576" class="footnote" name="idp8182576"><sup class="footnote">[99]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8184112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8184864"></a><p>
+nødvendig.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7041488" class="footnote" name="idp7041488"><sup class="footnote">[99]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7043024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7043776"></a><p>
Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. Idéen om at
være tilgjengelige for nyutgivelse for enhver utgiver etter en begrenset
tidsperiode. Dermed var det at vernetiden for eksisterende verk bare ble på
tjueen år, et kompromiss for å bekjempe makten til bokhandlerne.
-Begresningen i vernetiden var en indirekte måte å sikre konkurranse mellom
+Begrensningen i vernetiden var en indirekte måte å sikre konkurranse mellom
utgivere, og dermed oppbyggingen og spredning av kultur.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity"></a><p>
Da 1731 (1710 + 21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
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.<a href="#ftn.idp8195744" class="footnote" name="idp8195744"><sup class="footnote">[100]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8198224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8199200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8200176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8200928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8201936"></a><p>
+bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<a href="#ftn.idp7054656" class="footnote" name="idp7054656"><sup class="footnote">[100]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7057136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7058112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7059088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7059840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7060848"></a><p>
Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til domstolene i en serie
med saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv lov, men
sedvaneretten hadde de rett til å forby publiseringen av en bok, selv om
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8206064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7064976"></a><p>
Dette var et snedig argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av datidens ledende
jurister. Det viste også en utrolig frekkhet. Inntil da, som jussprofessor
Raymond Pattetson formulerte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne … like
-bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7916288" class="footnote" name="idp7916288"><sup class="footnote">[101]</sup></a> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
+bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp6775200" class="footnote" name="idp6775200"><sup class="footnote">[101]</sup></a> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolprofitten
forfatterens verk ga.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8212688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7071600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers"></a><p>
Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
-kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<a href="#ftn.idp8215072" class="footnote" name="idp8215072"><sup class="footnote">[102]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8218816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8219568"></a><p>
+kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<a href="#ftn.idp7073984" class="footnote" name="idp7073984"><sup class="footnote">[102]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxstatuteofanne3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconger"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7077728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7078480"></a><p>
Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger.</span>»</span> Han startet
sin karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
-Anne.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8221520" class="footnote" name="idp8221520"><sup class="footnote">[103]</sup></a> Donaldsons forlag vokste
+Anne.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7080432" class="footnote" name="idp7080432"><sup class="footnote">[103]</sup></a> Donaldsons forlag vokste
og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
-skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8224672" class="footnote" name="idp8224672"><sup class="footnote">[104]</sup></a>
+skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7083584" class="footnote" name="idp7083584"><sup class="footnote">[104]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw"></a><p>
Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
-eiendom.</span>»</span> <a href="#ftn.idp8228192" class="footnote" name="idp8228192"><sup class="footnote">[105]</sup></a> Bøkene hans var
+eiendom.</span>»</span> <a href="#ftn.idp7087104" class="footnote" name="idp7087104"><sup class="footnote">[105]</sup></a> Bøkene hans var
mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
sin rett til å konkurrere på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
Anne,</span>»</span> var falt i det fri.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8231264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7090176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmillarvtaylor"></a><p>
Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> som
Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykket, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
<em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8235344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8236320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8240016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8240768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7094144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7095120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxthomsonjames"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7098816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7099568"></a><p>
Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons.</span>»</span> Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne,</span>»</span> men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
utløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke en konkurrerende utgave. Millar gikk
til sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<a href="#ftn.idp8243520" class="footnote" name="idp8243520"><sup class="footnote">[106]</sup></a>
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<a href="#ftn.idp7102320" class="footnote" name="idp7102320"><sup class="footnote">[106]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord2"></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
mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater.</span>»</span> Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8248768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8249744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8250720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7107568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7108544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7109520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament3"></a><p>
Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
kongen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8254864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7113664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonalexander2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscottishpublishers2"></a><p>
Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8259232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8259984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7118032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7118784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhouseoflords"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtushouseoflordsvs"></a><p>
Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. *Dødsboet* hans solgte rettighetene
over Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
-Beckett.<a href="#ftn.idp8264032" class="footnote" name="idp8264032"><sup class="footnote">[107]</sup></a> Da ga Donaldson ut en
+Beckett.<a href="#ftn.idp7122832" class="footnote" name="idp7122832"><sup class="footnote">[107]</sup></a> Da ga Donaldson ut en
uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
<em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, fikk Beckett en forføyning mot
Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
Parlamentets mening med utløpsdatoen fra seksti år tidligere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8266016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8266992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7124816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7125792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdonaldsonvbeckett"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommonlaw2"></a><p>
På en måte som de færreste rettsaker gjør, fikk rettsaken
<em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> enorm
oppmerksomhet over hele Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at
beskyttelse for trykkerett komme derfra. Og derfor, argumenterte de, ville
verk som hadde vært beskyttet ikke lenger være beskyttet når vernetiden
spesifisert i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> utløp.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8273696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7132496"></a><p>
Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jusslorder,</span>»</span> medlemmer av en
spesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jusslordene</span>»</span> hadde stemt,
stemte resten av Overhuset.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8276336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7135136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainenglishlegalestablishmentof"></a><p>
Rapportene om jusslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå opphavsretten begrenset til en periode,
og etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8281632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8282384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8283136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8283888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8284640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7140432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7141184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7141936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7142688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7143440"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri.</span>»</span> Før rettssaken
<em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
frie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8287616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8288592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8289568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8290544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8291520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8292496"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7146416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7147392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7148368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7149344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7150320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7151296"></a><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
piratutgiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom:
-bålbrenning og pynting med lys.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8295536" class="footnote" name="idp8295536"><sup class="footnote">[108]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8296432"></a><p>
+bålbrenning og pynting med lys.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7154336" class="footnote" name="idp7154336"><sup class="footnote">[108]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7155232"></a><p>
I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
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.<a href="#ftn.idp8207952" class="footnote" name="idp8207952"><sup class="footnote">[109]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8300608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8301360"></a><p>
+familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<a href="#ftn.idp7066864" class="footnote" name="idp7066864"><sup class="footnote">[109]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7159488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7160240"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>»</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
der hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for
folket og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tross av
flertallets ønsker.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8306752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8307728"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7165632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7166608"></a><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><a class="indexterm" name="idp8309280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8310256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8311232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8312208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8313184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8314160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8315136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8316112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8317088"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8114848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8114848" class="para"><sup class="para">[96] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7168160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7169136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7170112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7171088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7172064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7173040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7174016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7174992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7175968"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp6973760" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6973760" class="para"><sup class="para">[96] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8115232"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8116240"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6974144"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp6975152"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
Bookseller,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
424-31.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8119712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8119712" class="para"><sup class="para">[97] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6978624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6978624" class="para"><sup class="para">[97] </sup></a>
Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
151–52.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8127712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8127712" class="para"><sup class="para">[98] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6986624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6986624" class="para"><sup class="para">[98] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8128096"></a> Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp6987008"></a> Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent
argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette en
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åndsverkslov.</span>»</span> Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
Copywrongs</em>, 40.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8182576" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8182576" class="para"><sup class="para">[99] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7041488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7041488" class="para"><sup class="para">[99] </sup></a>
Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8195744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8195744" class="para"><sup class="para">[100] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7054656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7054656" class="para"><sup class="para">[100] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp7916288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7916288" class="para"><sup class="para">[101] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp6775200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp6775200" class="para"><sup class="para">[101] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8208432"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8209440"></a> Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7067344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7068352"></a> Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair
Use,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For
en fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37–48.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8215072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8215072" class="para"><sup class="para">[102] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7073984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7073984" class="para"><sup class="para">[102] </sup></a>
For en fascinerende fremstilling, se David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship
and Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62–69.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8221520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8221520" class="para"><sup class="para">[103] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7080432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7080432" class="para"><sup class="para">[103] </sup></a>
Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
-University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8222288"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8224672" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8224672" class="para"><sup class="para">[104] </sup></a>
+University Press, 1993), 92. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7081200"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7083584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7083584" class="para"><sup class="para">[104] </sup></a>
Ibid., 93.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8228192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8228192" class="para"><sup class="para">[105] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7087104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7087104" class="para"><sup class="para">[105] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8228576"></a> Lyman Ray Patterson,
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7087488"></a> Lyman Ray Patterson,
<em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em>, 167 (der Borwell
blir sitert).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8243520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8243520" class="para"><sup class="para">[106] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7102320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7102320" class="para"><sup class="para">[106] </sup></a>
Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8264032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8264032" class="para"><sup class="para">[107] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7122832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7122832" class="para"><sup class="para">[107] </sup></a>
Ibid., 1156.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8295536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8295536" class="para"><sup class="para">[108] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7154336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7154336" class="para"><sup class="para">[108] </sup></a>
Rose, 97.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8207952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8207952" class="para"><sup class="para">[109] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7066864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7066864" class="para"><sup class="para">[109] </sup></a>
ibid.
</p><p>
Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor jeg også var involvert. I en pause
fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8330096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwagnerrichard"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7188976"></a><p>
I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
scenearbeidere ved San Francisco Opera. Scenearbeiderne er et spesielt
morsomt og fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder
forestillingen pågikk, mens scenearbeiderne spilte dam og operakompaniet
spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det,
så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget få med det spesielle med scenen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8334832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8335808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7193712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7194688"></a><p>
Så, noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8344816"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7203696"></a><p>
Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi …
at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk — ihvertfall at noen [hos
Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>»</span> Som det andre krevde
Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
sekundene med … fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8347888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8348864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxherrerarebecca"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7206768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7207744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxherrerarebecca"></a><p>
Else var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her … Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
dette.</span>»</span> Og du hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8352560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7211440"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
meg,</span>»</span> sa han. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger,</span>»</span> sa
Herrera Else med å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre
advokater.</span>»</span> En av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De
bryr seg ikke i det hele tatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8356704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8357680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8358432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7215504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7216480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7217232"></a><p>
Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
denne delen av virkeligheten lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Så like før
dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
dollar. Det er hans rett ifølge loven.
</p><p>
Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
-første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8368336" class="footnote" name="idp8368336"><sup class="footnote">[110]</sup></a> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
+første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7227136" class="footnote" name="idp7227136"><sup class="footnote">[110]</sup></a> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
<em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på rimelig bruk
av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>— og rimelig bruk krever ingen
tillatelse fra noen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8371696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8372672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7230592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7231568"></a><p>
Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
kringkaste dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpenbart rimelig bruk,</span>»</span> men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet
på noen konkret måte. Og dette er grunnen:
-</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8379680"></a><p>
+</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7238576"></a><p>
Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever TV-nettverket at vi kjøper en
alle scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk,</span>»</span> og
å påstå at noe er nettopp dette kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe,
prosessen.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8384256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8385008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8385760"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idxfoxfilmcompany3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7243152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7243904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7244656"></a><p>
Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
alt ville koke ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg
eller dem.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8391744"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7250640"></a></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Spørsmålet om rimelig bruk dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten av
prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
-</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8394160"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7253056"></a><p>
I teorien betyr rimelig bruk at du ikke trenger tillatelse. Teorien støtter
derfor den frie kultur og jobber mot tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis
fungerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> helt annerledes. Men de uklare linjene
syttenhundretallsrøtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot urettferdig
piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på enhver
bruk, omformende eller ikke.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8397616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8398592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8399568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8400544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8401520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8402496"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8368336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8368336" class="para"><sup class="para">[110] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7256512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7257488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7258464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7259440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7260416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7261392"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7227136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7227136" class="para"><sup class="para">[110] </sup></a>
Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>»</span> (utkast arkivert hos
forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8404976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8406960"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7263872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7265856"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>I 1993</strong></span> arbeidet Alex Alben som jurist hos
Starwave Inc. Starwave var et innovativt firma grunnlagt av Paul Allen, som
også hadde vært med som grunnlegger av Microsoft. Starwaves mål var å
Alben svarte, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tja, vi må innhente tillatelse fra alle som opptrer i
disse filmene, for musikken og for alt annet som er i disse
filmklippene.</span>»</span> Slade svarte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Flott! Gjør
-det.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8419808" class="footnote" name="idp8419808"><sup class="footnote">[111]</sup></a>
+det.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7278704" class="footnote" name="idp7278704"><sup class="footnote">[111]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Problemet var at verken Alben eller Slade forstod hva det innebar å innhente
disse tillatelsene. Alle skuespillerne i hver av filmene kunne ha krav på
å identifisere, siden det ofte er vanskelig å vite hvem som er skuespilleren
og hvem som er stuntmannen i Eastwoods filmer. Og deretter samlet vi oss en
gjeng og begynte å ringe rundt.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8428464"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7287360"></a><p>
Noen skuespillere var glade for å kunne hjelpe — Donald Sutherland
fulgte for eksempel opp saken personlig for å sørge for at alt var
greit. Andre brydde seg mest om pengene. Alben kunne spørre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hei, kan
Og produktet ble uten tvil særdeles godt. Eastwood elsket det og det solgte
veldig bra.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8436624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7295520"></a><p>
Men jeg spurte Alben om hvor merkelig det syntes at det skulle ta et helt år
bare å få orden på rettigheter. Alben hadde gjort det hele svært effektivt,
men som Peter Drucker så berømmelig har sagt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er ikke noe som er
så ubrukelig å gjøre effektivt enn det som egentlig ikke gjøres i det hele
-tatt.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8438544" class="footnote" name="idp8438544"><sup class="footnote">[112]</sup></a> Var det noe fornuft i at
+tatt.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7297440" class="footnote" name="idp7297440"><sup class="footnote">[112]</sup></a> Var det noe fornuft i at
det var slik et nye verk skulle skapes, spurte jeg Alben.
</p><p>
For, som han innrømmet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">veldig få … har tid og ressurser, og
gjennomsnittlig webdesigner ikke kan drømme om. Så hvis det tok ham et år,
hvor lang tid ville det ta noen andre? Og hvor mye kreativitet får aldri
form på grunn av kostnadene rundt å kartlegge og skaffe rettigheter?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8449024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8449888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7308016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7308880"></a><p>
Disse kostnadene er byrdene fra en form for regulering. Vi kan prøve å ta på
oss hatten til en republikaner og bli sinte et øyeblikk. Staten styrer disse
rettighetenes omfang, og omfanget bestemmer hvor mye det vil koste å krenke
seg, er meningen borte. Ihvertfall så burde en veltrenet,
reguleringsfiendtlig republikaner se på rettighetene og spørre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gir
det mening nå?</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8452384"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7311376"></a><p>
Jeg har sett glimt av gjenkjennelse på dette punktet, men bare noen få
ganger. Første gang var på en konferanse for føderale dommere i
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 hvert minutt av den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8455984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7314976"></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
tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
ble brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
</p><p>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8458576"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8459328"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8460080"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8461088"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8461872"></a> Og selvsagt
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7317568"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7318320"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7319072"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7320080"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7320832"></a> Og selvsagt
hadde ikke disse to briljante talentene gjort hva Alben hadde gjort. De
hadde ikke ordnet alle rettighetene til klippene de brukte. Rent teknisk
hadde de brutt loven. Men ingen kom til å straffeforfølge disse to (selv om
Internetts <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">klipp og lim</span>»</span>-arkitektur gir—på et sekund kan
du finne akkurat det bildet du vil ha, og du kan få den inn i presentasjonen
din.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8465648"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7324384"></a><p>
Men presentasjoner er bare en liten start. Ved hjelp av Internett og dets
arkiver, er musikere i stand til å sy sammen nye lydmikser som ingen hadde
slik at du slipper å stole på rimelig bruk. I begge tilfeller er den
kreative prosessen blitt en prosess med å betale jurister—igjen, et
privilegium forbeholdt de få.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8419808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8419808" class="para"><sup class="para">[111] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7278704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7278704" class="para"><sup class="para">[111] </sup></a>
Teknisk sett var rettighetene som Alben måtte klarere i hovedsak de om
publisitet—rettigheten en artist har til å kontrollere den
kommersielle utnyttelsen av sitt bilde. Men disse rettighetene belaster
også <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ripp, miks, brenn</span>»</span>-kreativiteten slik dette kapittelet
-demonstrerer. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8421344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8422608"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8438544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8438544" class="para"><sup class="para">[112] </sup></a>
+demonstrerer. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7280240"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7281504"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7297440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7297440" class="para"><sup class="para">[112] </sup></a>
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
<em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
Acquisition</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8486672"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7344352"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>I april 1996</strong></span> hadde millioner av
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bot-er</span>»</span> dataprogramkode utformet for å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kravle</span>»</span>
eller automatisk søke på Internett og kopiere innhold—gått i gang på
Da botene var ferdig med hele Internett startet de på nytt. Igjen og igjen,
en gang hver andre måneder, tok disse snuttene med kode kopier av Internett
og lagret dem.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8490400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7347744"></a><p>
I oktober 2001 hadde botene samlet mer enn fem år med kopier. Og ved en
liten kunngjøring ved Berkeley, California, ble arkivet som disse kopiene
utgjorde, Internettarkivet, åpnet for verden. Ved å bruke en teknologi ved
leste tidligere. Siden kan se helt lik ut, men innholdet kan ganske enkelt
vær helt annerledes. Internett er Orwells bibliotek—kontinuerlig
oppdatert, uten en pålitelig hukommelse.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8496928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8498992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7353856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7355888"></a><p>
I hvert fall før Way Back Machine dukket opp. Ved hjelp av Way Back
Machine, og Internettarkivet som ligger til grunn for denne, så kan du se
hvordan Internett var. Du har mulighet til å se det du husker. Og kanskje
viktigere, så har du mulighet til å finne det du ikke husker og det andre
-kanskje fortrekker at du glemmer.<a href="#ftn.idp8500704" class="footnote" name="idp8500704"><sup class="footnote">[113]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8504496"></a><p>
+kanskje fortrekker at du glemmer.<a href="#ftn.idp7357536" class="footnote" name="idp7357536"><sup class="footnote">[113]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7360880"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Vi tar det</strong></span> for gitt at vi kan gå tilbake
å se det vi husker å ha lest. Tenk for eksempel på aviser. Hvis du ønsker å
studenere reaksjonene i lokalavisen din om raseopprørene i Watts i 1965,
forretningsmann, og at det var på tide å lykkes på et annet område. Derfor
lanserte han en serie prosjekter som ble utformet for å arkivere menneskelig
kunnskap. Internettarkivet var bare det første av prosjektene til denne
-*Andrew Carnige* for Internett. I desember 2002 hadde arkivet over ti
-milliard sider, og det vokste med omtrent en milliard sider i måneden.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8511632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8512384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8513168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8513984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8514800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
+Internett-filantropen. I desember 2002 hadde arkivet over ti milliarder
+sider, og det vokste med omtrent en milliard sider i måneden.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7367856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7368608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7369360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7370112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7370864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnewscoverage2"></a><p>
Way Back Machine er det største arkivet over menneskelig kunnskap i
menneskehetens historie. Ved slutten av 2002 inneholdt det <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to hundre
og tredve terrabyte med materiale</span>»</span>—og var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti ganger
nesten fullstendig utilgjengelig,</span>»</span> fortalte Kahle meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis
du er Barbara Walters så kan du få tilgang til [arkivene], men hva hvis du
bare er en student?</span>»</span> Som Kahle formulerte det,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8521744"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8522560"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7377248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7378000"></a><p>
Husker du da Dan Quayle snakket med Murphy Brown? Husker du den uvirkelige
opplevelsen av samtalen som gikk frem og tilbake mellom en politiker og en
disse to og <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>-episoden som kom ut etter
dette … så ville det være nesten umulig … Dette materialet er
nesten umulig å finne. …
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8525776"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7380976"></a><p>
Hvorfor er det slik? Hvor er den delen av kulturen vår som er lagret i
aviser tilgjengelige til evig tid, mens den delen som er lagret på videobånd
ikke er det? Hvorfor har vi laget en verden der forskere som forsøker å
biblioteker. Disse kopiene skulle både sikre spredning av kunnskap, og
sikre at det fantes en kopi av verket tilgjengelig når vernetiden utløp,
slik at andre kunne få tilgang til og kopiere verket.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8528880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8529696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7384016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7384768"></a><p>
Disse reglene gjaldt også for filmer. Men i 1915 gjorde kongressbiblioteket
et unntak for film. Filmer kunne bli opphavsrettsbeskyttet så lenge det ble
gjort slik deponering. Men filmskaperne fikk så lov til å låne tilbake de
det mer enn 5475 filmer deponert og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lånt tilbake.</span>»</span> Dermed var
det ikke noe eksemplar i noe bibliotek når vernetiden til filmen utløp.
Eksemplaret finnes—hvis det finnes i det hele tatt—i
-arkivbiblioteket til filmselskapet.<a href="#ftn.idp8532448" class="footnote" name="idp8532448"><sup class="footnote">[114]</sup></a>
+arkivbiblioteket til filmselskapet.<a href="#ftn.idp7387392" class="footnote" name="idp7387392"><sup class="footnote">[114]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Det samme er generelt sett sant også for TV. Fjernsynssendinger var
opprinnelig ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet—det fantes ingen måte å ta opp
til dem, og myndighetene gjorde ikke krav på dem. Innholdet fra denne delen
av amerikansk kultur er i praksis usynlig for alle som kunne tenke seg å se
den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8537568"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7392512"></a><p>
Kahle ivret etter å rette på dette. Før 11. september 2001 hadde han og
hans allierte begynt å ta opp TV. De valgte tjue stasjoner rundt om i
fra og med 11. oktober 2011 gjorde opptakene fra uka rundt 11. september
fritt tilgjengelig på nettet. Enhver kunne se hvordan nyhetsmeldingene
verden rundt dekket hendelsene disse dagene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8539632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8540416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8541520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8542768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8543872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8544688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8545504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8546320"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7394576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7395360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7396464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7397712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7398816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7399632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7400448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7401264"></a><p>
Kahle hadde samme idé for film. I samarbeid med Rick Relinger, hvis
filmarkiv inneholder nesten 45 000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">flyktige filmer</span>»</span> (i
betydningen filmer som ikke er Hollywood-filmer, filmer som aldri ble
eller fylle bokser med skjøre gaver eller til å bygge et arkiv med kunnskap
om vår historie. Dette er den andre fasen, der innholdet kan fortsatt
informere selv om informasjonen ikke lenger blir solgt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8555056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7410000"></a><p>
Det samme har alltid vært tilfelle for bøker. En bok blir utsolgt fra
-forlaget svært raskt (i dag skjer det i snitt etter et år<a href="#ftn.idp8556592" class="footnote" name="idp8556592"><sup class="footnote">[115]</sup></a>). Etter at den er utsolgt fra forlaget kan den
+forlaget svært raskt (i dag skjer det i snitt etter et år<a href="#ftn.idp7411536" class="footnote" name="idp7411536"><sup class="footnote">[115]</sup></a>). Etter at den er utsolgt fra forlaget kan den
selges i bruktbokhandler uten at opphavsrettsinnehaveren får noe. Den kan
også oppbevares i biblioteker, hvor mange får mulighet til å lese boken,
helt gratis. Bruktbokhandler og biblioteker er dermed den andre fasen til en
før. Folk som Brewster Kahle har drømt om det opp igjennom historien, men
vi er for første gang ved et punkt der denne drømmen er mulig. Som Kahle
beskriver det,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8566912"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7421792"></a><p>
Det ser ut til at det finnes omtrent to til tre millioner opptak av
musikk. Totalt gjennom hele historien. Det er omtrent hundre tusen
kinofilmer utgitt, … og omtrent en til to millioner filmer
av de tingene som menneskeheten ville være mest stolt av. Helt der oppe
blant biblioteket i Alexandria, plassere en mann på månen, og oppfinnelsen
av trykkpressen.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8570112"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7424992"></a><p>
Kahle er ikke den eneste bibliotekaren. Internettarkivet er ikke det eneste
arkivet. Men Kahle og Internettarkivet antyder hva fremtiden for
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bibliotek</span>»</span> kan virke, så er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">innholdet</span>»</span> som er
samlet i disse digitale områdene også noens <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom.</span>»</span> Og
eiendoms-lover begrenser friheten til folk som Kahle.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp8576240"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8500704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8500704" class="para"><sup class="para">[113] </sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp7431152"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7357536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7357536" class="para"><sup class="para">[113] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8501088"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8502192"></a> Fristelsene er dog der fortsatt. Brewster Kahle forteller at Det
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7357920"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7358928"></a> Fristelsene er dog der fortsatt. Brewster Kahle forteller at Det
hvite hus endrer sine egne pressemeldinger uten varsel. En pressemelding
fra 13. mai 2003 inneholdt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kampoperasjoner i Irak er over.</span>»</span>
Det ble senere endret, uten varsel, til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Større kampoperasjoner i Irak
er over.</span>»</span> Epost fra Brewster Kahle, 1. desember 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8532448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8532448" class="para"><sup class="para">[114] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7387392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7387392" class="para"><sup class="para">[114] </sup></a>
Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2–3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
<em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
States</em> (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 1992), 36.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8556592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8556592" class="para"><sup class="para">[115] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7411536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7411536" class="para"><sup class="para">[115] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp8556976"></a> Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp7411920"></a> Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career
in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by
Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5
september 1997, ved Metro Lake 1L. Av bøker publisert mellom 1927 og 1946
Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital
Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em> 44
(2003): 593 n. 51.
-</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8579616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8580432"></a><p>
+</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7434464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7435280"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> har vært president for
Motion Picture Assication of America siden 1966. Han ankom Washington
D.C. med Lyndon Johnson-administrasjonen—bokstavelig talt. På det
snikmordet på president Kennedy befinner Valenti seg i bakgrunnen. I sine
nesten ført år som leder av MPAA har Valenti etablert seg som kanskje den
mest synlige og effektive lobbyisten i Washington.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8582352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8584048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8584880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8585712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8586528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8587344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8588160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7437200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7438896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7439728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7440512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7441328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7442144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7442960"></a><p>
MPAA er den amerikanske grenen av den internasjonale filmforeningen. Den ble
stiftet i 1922 som en handelsforening hvis mål var å forsvare amerikanske
filmer mot økende kritikk innenlands. Organisasjonen representerer ikke
rettigheter og beskyttelser som alle andre eiendomseiere i
landet</em></span>. Det er det som er saken. Det er det som er spørsmålet.
Og det er fundamentet som hele denne høringen og debatten som følger må
-legge saken til hvile på.<a href="#ftn.idp8596112" class="footnote" name="idp8596112"><sup class="footnote">[116]</sup></a>
+legge saken til hvile på.<a href="#ftn.idp7450880" class="footnote" name="idp7450880"><sup class="footnote">[116]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Strategien for denne retorikken, som strategien til det meste av Valentis
hvert fall i Washington.
</p><p>
Mens <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativ eiendom</span>»</span> helt klart er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> på
-en nerdete og presis måte som advokater er trent til å forstå,<a href="#ftn.idp8604720" class="footnote" name="idp8604720"><sup class="footnote">[117]</sup></a> så har det aldri vært tilfelle, og det bør det
+en nerdete og presis måte som advokater er trent til å forstå,<a href="#ftn.idp7459424" class="footnote" name="idp7459424"><sup class="footnote">[117]</sup></a> så har det aldri vært tilfelle, og det bør det
heller ikke være, at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiere av kreativ eiendom</span>»</span> har fått
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tildelt de samme rettigheter og beskyttelser som alle andre
eiendomseiere.</span>»</span> Faktisk ville det være en radikal og radikalt
at kreativ eiendom skulle tildeles de samme rettighetene som all annen
eiendom? Hvorfor krevde de at for kreativ eiendom må det finnes et
allemannseie?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8629584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7484256"></a><p>
For å besvare dette spørsmålet trenger vi å få litt perspektiv på historien
til disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreative eiendomsrettene,</span>»</span> og kontrollen de har
muliggjort. Når vi klarere ser hvor forskjellig disse rettighetene har vært
reguleringsmodaliteter samvirker for å støtte eller svekke rettigheten eller
reguleringen. Jeg representerte det med dette diagrammet:
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.1. Hvordan fire forskjellige reguleringsmodaliteter samhandler for å støtte
-eller svekke rettigheten eller reguleringen.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Hvordan fire forskjellige reguleringsmodaliteter samhandler for å støtte eller svekke rettigheten eller reguleringen."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8647232"></a><p>
+eller svekke rettigheten eller reguleringen.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Hvordan fire forskjellige reguleringsmodaliteter samhandler for å støtte eller svekke rettigheten eller reguleringen."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7501904"></a><p>
I midten av dette bildet er en regulert prikk: individet eller gruppen som
er målet for reguleringen, eller innehaver av en rettighet. (I hvert
tilfelle gjennom hele denne teksten kan vi beskrive det enten som en
Madonnas opphavsrett ved å kopiere en sang fra hennes siste CD og legge den
ut på web, så kan du bli straffet med en bot på 150 000 dollar. Boten
er en *ex post* straff for å bryte en *ex ante* regel. Den pålegges av
-staten.<a class="indexterm" name="idp8548336"></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8651424"></a><p>
+staten.<a class="indexterm" name="idp7403280"></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7506096"></a><p>
Normer er en annen type begrensning. De kan også straffe et individ for å
bryte en regel. Men straffen for normbrudd kommer fra fellesskapet, ikke
(eller ikke bare) fra staten. Det er kanskje ingen lov mot spytting, men
selge. Men gitt et sett med normer og en bakgrunn med eiendoms- og
kontraktslovgiving, så påfører markedet samtidig begrensninger for hvordan
et individ eller en gruppe kan oppføre seg.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8655120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7509728"></a><p>
Til slutt og kanskje for økeblikket det mest mystiske,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arkitektur</span>»</span>—den fysiske verden slik den
oppleves—er en begrensning på adferd. En nedrast bro kan begrense din
er det gravitasjonsloven som håndhever den begrensningen. Hvis en 500
dollars flybillett står mellom deg og en flytur til New York, så er det
markedet som håndhever den begrensningen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8660800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8662128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8663456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7515408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7516736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7518064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawasconstraintmodality2"></a><p>
påstår ikke at listen er komplett), så er disse fire blant de
viktigste. Eventuelle lovendringer (uansett om den øker kontroll eller øker
frihet) må vurdere hvordan disse fire i særdeleshet virker sammen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8668800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8669600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8670416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7523232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7524032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7524848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivingspeedconstraintson"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxspeedingconstraintson"></a><p>
Så la oss for eksempel vurdere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friheten</span>»</span> til å kjøre fort i
bil. Den friheten er delvis begrenset av lovverket: fartsgrenser som sier
hvor fort du kan kjøre på bestemte steder til bestemte tidspunkt. Det er
Det siste poenget om denne enkle modellen bør også være rimelig klart: Mens
disse fire modalitetene er analytisk uavhengige, så har lovverket en
-spesiell rolle i å påvirke de tre andre.<a href="#ftn.idp8677968" class="footnote" name="idp8677968"><sup class="footnote">[118]</sup></a> Lovverket vil med andre ord noen ganger operere for å øke eller
+spesiell rolle i å påvirke de tre andre.<a href="#ftn.idp7532400" class="footnote" name="idp7532400"><sup class="footnote">[118]</sup></a> Lovverket vil med andre ord noen ganger operere for å øke eller
redusere begrensningene til en bestemt modalitet. Loven kan brukes slik til
å øke skattene på bensin for slik å øke incentivene til å kjøre saktere.
Loven kan brukes til å kreve flere fartsdumper, for slik å gjøre det
til å kreve at andre lover blir mer streng—et føderalt krav som sier
at delstatene må redusere fartsgrensene—for slik å gjøre det mindre
attraktivt å kjøre fort.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8680784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8683504"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Lovverket har en spesiell rolle i å påvirke disse tre.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1361.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Lovverket har en spesiell rolle i å påvirke disse tre."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8687328"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7535216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7537968"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Lovverket har en spesiell rolle i å påvirke disse tre.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1361.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Lovverket har en spesiell rolle i å påvirke disse tre."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp7541824"></a><p>
Disse begrensningene kan dermed endre seg, og de kan bli endret. For å
forstå den effektive beskyttelsen til friheten eller beskyttelse for eiendom
på et bestemt tidspunkt, må vi holde rede på disse endringene over tid. En
begrensning påført av en modalitet kan bli fjernet av en annen. En frihet
-muliggjort av en modalitet kan bli tatt bort av en annen.<a href="#ftn.idp8689168" class="footnote" name="idp8689168"><sup class="footnote">[119]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8699536"></a><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><p>
+muliggjort av en modalitet kan bli tatt bort av en annen.<a href="#ftn.idp7543664" class="footnote" name="idp7543664"><sup class="footnote">[119]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7554032"></a><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightfourregulatorymodalitieson"></a><p>
Det mest åpenbare poenget som denne modellen avslører er akkurat hvorfor,
eller hvordan, Hollywood har rett. Opphavsrettskrigerne har kjørt kampanje
mot Kongressen og domstolene for å forsvare opphavsretten. Denne modellen
hjelper oss å forstå hvorfor slik kampanje gir mening.
</p><p>
La oss si at dette er et bilde av opphavsrettens regulering før Internett:
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.3. Opphavsrettens regulering før Internett</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Opphavsrettens regulering før Internett"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8709328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.3. Opphavsrettens regulering før Internett</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1331.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Opphavsrettens regulering før Internett"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchitectureconstrainteffectedthrough"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7563984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxnormsregulatoryinfluenceof2"></a><p>
Det er balanse mellom lovverk, normer, marked og arkitektur. Lovverket
det god hende er brudd på opphavsretten, men normene i vår samfunn (i hvert
fall før Internett) hadde ikke noe problem med denne form for
opphavsrettsbrudd.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8716048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8717184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8718000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightregulatorybalancelostwith"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7570624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7571760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7572576"></a><p>
Så kommer Internett, eller mer presist, teknologier som MP3-er og
p2p-fildeling. Nå endrer begrensningene fra arkitektur seg dramatisk, og
det samme gjør begrensningene fra markedet. Og etter hvert som både
markedet og arkitekturen roer ned sin regulering av opphavsrett, hoper
normene seg opp. Den glade balansen (i hvert fall for krigerne) i livet før
Internett blir en effektiv anarkistat etter Internett.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8719824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8721264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8722592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7574400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7575840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7577168"></a><p>
Dermed fornuften i, og begrunnelsen for, krigernes respons. Teknologien er
endret, sier krigerne, og effekten av denne endringen når den kjøres
opphavsrettseierenes rettigheter har gått tapt. Dette er Irak etter Saddams
fall, men denne gangen er det ingen regjering som rettferdiggjør ranet som
fulgte.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.4. effektiv tilstand av anarki etter Internett.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1381.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="effektiv tilstand av anarki etter Internett."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8727552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.4. effektiv tilstand av anarki etter Internett.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1381.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="effektiv tilstand av anarki etter Internett."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7582128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxregulationasestablishmentprotectionism"></a><p>
Hverken denne analysen eller konklusjonene som følger av den er nye for
krigerne. Faktisk ble denne blandingen av regulatoriske modaliteter, i en
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvitebok</span>»</span> utarbeidet av handelsdepartementet (og sterkt
markedsføringsteknikker, (3) teknologer burde anstrenge seg for å utvikle
kode som beskyttet opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale og (4) lærere burde lære
opp unger til å beskytte opphavsretten bedre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8732224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8733600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8734928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8735744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7586800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7588112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7589440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7590256"></a><p>
Denne blandede strategien var akkurat det opphavsretten trengte—hvis
den skulle bevare den bestemte balansen som eksisterte før endringen som ble
be om erstatning fra myndighetene når et virus (arkitektur) utsletter
avlingen deres. Fagforeninger nøler ikke med å be myndighetene om
erstatning når import (marked) tar knekken på USAs stålindustri.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8739408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8740720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8742112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7593920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7595232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7596560"></a><p>
Det er dermed ikke noe galt eller overraskende i innholdsindustriens
kampanje for å beskytte seg selv mot de skadelige konsekvensene av en
teknologisk nyvinning. Og jeg ville være den siste personen til å hevde at
den endrede teknologien på Internett ikke har hatt vidtrekkende effekt på
innholdsindustriens måte å gjøre forretninger på, eller som John Seely Brown
beskriver det, dens <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">inntektsarkitektur.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8744512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8745344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8746464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8747280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8748096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8748912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8749728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8750544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7598960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7599792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7600912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7601728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7602544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7603360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7604176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7604992"></a><p>
Men bare på grunn av at en bestemt interesse ber om støtte fra myndighetene,
så er det ikke en selvfølge at de bør få slik støtte. Og selv om teknologi
har svekket en bestemt måte å drive forretninger, så er det ingen selvfølge
at myndighetene bør gripe inn for å støtte den gamle måten å drive
forretninger. Kodak, for eksempel, har mistet kanskje så mye som 20 prosent
av sitt tradisjonelle film-marked til den fremvoksende teknologien
-digital-kamera. <a href="#ftn.idp8752272" class="footnote" name="idp8752272"><sup class="footnote">[120]</sup></a> Tror noen at
+digital-kamera. <a href="#ftn.idp7606720" class="footnote" name="idp7606720"><sup class="footnote">[120]</sup></a> Tror noen at
myndighetene bør bannlyse digital-kamera kun for å støtte Kodak? Motorveier
har svekket frakt via jernbanen. Er det noen som mener vi bør bannlyse
vogntog fra veiene <span class="emphasis"><em>med det formål</em></span> å beskytte jernbanen?
noen som tror vi bør regulere fjernkontroller for å styrke kommersielt TV?
(Kanskje ved å begrense dem til å fungere kun en gang i sekundet, eller til
å begrense seg til ti kanalbytter i timen?)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8759504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8760320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8761136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8762240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8763056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8763872"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreemarkettechnologicalchangesin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7613904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7614720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7615536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7616640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7617456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7618208"></a><p>
Det åpenbare svaret på disse åpenbart retoriske spørsmålene er nei. I et
fritt samfunn, med et fritt marked, støttet av frie markedsaktører og fri
handel, er ikke myndighetenes rolle å understøtte én bestemt måte å gjøre
aldri fått noen fremgang. Bill Gates, styrelederen i Microsoft, skrev i
1991 i et notat som kritiserte programvarepatenter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">etablerte
selskaper har interesse av å ekskludere fremtidige
-konkurrenter.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8765952" class="footnote" name="idp8765952"><sup class="footnote">[121]</sup></a> Og i forhold til
+konkurrenter.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp7620288" class="footnote" name="idp7620288"><sup class="footnote">[121]</sup></a> Og i forhold til
et nystartet selskap har etablerte selskaper også andre virkemidler. (Tenk
RCA og FM-radio.) En verden hvor konkurrenter med nye idéer må sloss ikke
bare mot markedet men også mot myndighetene er en verden hvor konkurrenter
beslutningstagerne å sikre at endringene de skaper som svar til dem som blir
skadet av teknologiske endringer, er endringer som bevarer incentiver og
muligheter for nyskapning og endring.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8769536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8770624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8771472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7623872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7624960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7625808"></a><p>
I sammenheng med lover som regulerer ytringer—hvilket åpenbart
inkluderer opphavsrettsloven—er plikten enda sterkere. Når industrien
klager over teknologier som endrer seg og ber Kongressen om å svare på en
begrenser ytringsfriheten.</span>»</span> Så når Kongressen blir spurt om å vedta
lover som ville <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrense</span>»</span> ytringsfriheten, bør den
vurdere—svært nøye—hvorvidt slik regulering er berettiget.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8775280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8776416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7629696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7630896"></a><p>
Mitt argument akkurat nå har derimot ingenting med hvorvidt endringene som
blir fremmet av opphavsrettskrigerne er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">berettiget.</span>»</span> Mitt
Ingen tviler på at det er en god ting å drepe sykdomsbærende skadedyr eller
å øke avlingene. Og ingen tviler på at arbeidet til Müller var viktig og
verdifult, og antagelig sparte liv, kanskje millioner av liv.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8788160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8788976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7642640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7643456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxenvironmentalism"></a><p>
Men i 1962 publiserte Rachel Carson <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
som hevdet at DDT, uansett dets primære fordeler, også hadde utilsiktede
miljømessige konsekvenser. Fugler mistet evnen til å reprodusere seg. Hele
ble angrepet. Eller for å være mer presis, problemene som DDT forårsaket
var verre enn problemene de løste, i hvert fall når en vurderer andre, mer
miljøvennlige måter å løse problemet som DDT var ment å løse.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8793680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8794992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7648160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7649472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawinnovativefreedombalancedwithfaircompensationin2"></a><p>
Det er akkurat dette bildet som jussprofessor James Boyle ved Duke
University appellerer til når han argumenterer med at vi trenger en
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">miljøbevegelse</span>»</span> for kulturen.<a href="#ftn.idp8799088" class="footnote" name="idp8799088"><sup class="footnote">[122]</sup></a> Hans poeng, og poenget jeg ønsker å fremheve når jeg *balanserer
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">miljøbevegelse</span>»</span> for kulturen.<a href="#ftn.idp7653552" class="footnote" name="idp7653552"><sup class="footnote">[122]</sup></a> Hans poeng, og poenget jeg ønsker å fremheve når jeg *balanserer
dette kapittelet*, er at opphavsretten ikke har feil mål. Eller at
forfattere ikke skal få betalt for sitt arbeide. Eller at musikk bør gis
bort <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis.</span>»</span> Poenget er at noen av måtene som vi kan bruke
beskytter opphavsretten en støtte til anarki eller et angrep på forfattere.
Det vi søker er et kreativt miljø, og vi bør være oppmerksomme på hvordan
våre handlinger påvirker dette miljøet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8802560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7657024"></a><p>
Mitt argument, i *dette kapittelets balanse*, forsøker å kartlegge akkurat
denne effekten. Det er ingen tvil om at teknologien til Internett har hatt
dramatisk effekt på muligheten for opphavsrettseierne til å beskytte
endringene ikke bare være at opphavsrettsvernede verk blir effektivt
beskyttet. I tillegg, og stort sett oversett, er netto effekt av denne
massive økningen i beskyttelse også ødeleggende for kreativitetsmiljøet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8804976"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7659440"></a><p>
For å oppsummere: For å drepe en mygg sprøyter vi DDT med konsekvenser for
fri kultur som vil være mye mer ødeleggende enn om denne myggen ble borte.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8807184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8808496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8809936"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Opphav</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp8812352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8817296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8818448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8822912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7661584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7662832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7664272"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Opphav</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp7666736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionuscopyrightpurposeestablishedin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7671616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7672768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyconstitutionaltraditionon2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7677392"></a><p>
USA kopierte engelsk opphavsrettslov. Egentlig kopierte og forbedret vi
engelsk opphavsrettslov. Grunnloven vår gjør formålet med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativ
eiendom</span>»</span> helt klart; dens uttrykkelige begrensninger forsterker det
myndighet er dets formål, og dets formål er for fellesskapet. Formålet er
ikke å berike utgivere, og formålet er heller ikke hovedsaklig å belønne
forfattere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8831776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7686192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawasprotectionofcreators"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawhistoryofamerican"></a><p>
Fremskritts-bestemmelsen begrenser uttrykkelig varigheten for
opphavsretten. Som vi så i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, begrenset engelskmennene varigheten i opphavsretten
for å sikre at noen få ikke kunne utøve uforholdsmessig stor kontroll over
at grunnlovsforfatterne tok etter England med et lignende formål. Faktisk
forsterket grunnlovsforfatterne, i motsetning til engelskmennene, dette
formålet ved å kreve at opphavsretten kun gjaldt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forfattere.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8839616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8840432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8841552"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7694048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7694864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7695984"></a><p>
Utformingen av Fremskritts-bestemmelsen reflekterer noe om grunnlovens
utforming generelt. For å unngå et problem bygget grunnlovsforfatterne en
struktur. For å hindre at for mye makt samlet seg utgiverne, bygde de en
<span class="emphasis"><em>struktur</em></span> av kontrollmekanismer inn i den
konstitusjonelle rammen, strukturert for å hindre ellers uunngåelig
maktkonsentrering.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8843264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8846144"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7697696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7700576"></a><p>
Jeg tviler på at deltagerne i grunnlovsforsamlingen vil kjenne igjen
reguleringen vi kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span> i dag. Omfanget av den
regulering går langt ut over alt de noensinne vurderte. For å begynne å
forstå hva de gjorde, trenger vi å sette vår <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span> i
sammenheng: Vi trenger å se hvordan den har endret seg i løpet av de 210
årene som har gått siden de først avgjorde dens utforming.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8849456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8850832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8852144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8853472"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7703824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7705200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7706512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7707840"></a><p>
Noen av disse endringer kommer fra lovverket: noen i lys av endringer i
teknologi og noen i lys av endringer i teknologi gitt en bestemt
La meg forklare hvordan.
-</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8868560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusoncopyrightlaws5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7723024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainbalanceofuscontentin"></a><p>
Da den første Kongressen vedtok loven for å beskytte kreativ eiendom, møtte
den de samme usikkerhetene rundt status for kreativ eiendom som
engelskmennene hadde blitt konfrontert med i 1774. Flere delstater hadde
vedtatt lover som beskyttet kreativ eiendom, og noen mente at disse lovene
enkelt og greit var tillegg til sedvanerettigheter som allerede beskyttet
-kreativt forfatterskap.<a href="#ftn.idp8872496" class="footnote" name="idp8872496"><sup class="footnote">[123]</sup></a> Dette betød at
+kreativt forfatterskap.<a href="#ftn.idp7726848" class="footnote" name="idp7726848"><sup class="footnote">[123]</sup></a> Dette betød at
det ikke var noe garantert allemannseie i USA i 1790. Hvis opphavsretten
var beskyttet av sedvaneretten, så var det ingen enkel måte å vite hvorvidt
et verk publisert i USA var kontrollert eller fritt. Akkurat som i England
ville denne vedvarende usikkerheten gjøre det vanskelig for utgivere å
basere seg på allemannseiet når de ønsket å gi ut på nytt og distribuere
verk.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8876368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7730720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawfederalvsstate"></a><p>
Denne usikkerheten tok slutt da Kongressen vedtok lovgiving som tildelte
opphavsrettigheter. Da føderal lov overstyrer enhver motstridende
delstatslov, fortrengte den føderale beskyttelsen av opphavsrettsbeskyttede
var i live ved slutten av disse fjorten årene, så kunne han velge å fornye
opphavsrettsbeskyttelsen for nye fjorten år. Hvis han ikke fornyet
opphavsretten, så ble hans verk en del av allemannseien.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8883264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7737504"></a><p>
Selv om det ble skapt mange verk i USA i de første 10 årene til republikken,
så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
opphavsrettsregimet. Av alle verk 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.<a href="#ftn.idp8885504" class="footnote" name="idp8885504"><sup class="footnote">[124]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8889808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8891024"></a><p>
+14 år.<a href="#ftn.idp7739744" class="footnote" name="idp7739744"><sup class="footnote">[124]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7744048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7745264"></a><p>
Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
for opphavsrett. Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
Fjorten år virker kanskje ikke lenge for oss, men for det store flertall av
opphavsrettsinnehavere på den tiden var den lenge nok. Kun en liten
minoritet blant dem fornyet sin opphavsrett etter fjorten år. Balansen
-tillot deres verk å falle i det fri.<a href="#ftn.idp8894480" class="footnote" name="idp8894480"><sup class="footnote">[125]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8898192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8899408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8900512"></a><p>
+tillot deres verk å falle i det fri.<a href="#ftn.idp7748720" class="footnote" name="idp7748720"><sup class="footnote">[125]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7749424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7753552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7754656"></a><p>
Selv i dag gir denne strukturen mening. De fleste av kreative verk har et
kommersielt liv som kun varer noen få år. De fleste bøker er utsolgt fra
-forlaget etter ett år.<a href="#ftn.idp8902240" class="footnote" name="idp8902240"><sup class="footnote">[126]</sup></a> Når det skjer
+forlaget etter ett år.<a href="#ftn.idp7756384" class="footnote" name="idp7756384"><sup class="footnote">[126]</sup></a> Når det skjer
kjøpes og selges de brukte bøkene helt uten opphavsrettslige reguleringer.
Dermed er bøkene <span class="emphasis"><em>i effekt</em></span> ikke lenger kontrollert av
opphavsretten. Den eneste praktiske kommersielle bruken av bøkene på dette
opphavsretter med nitten år. Og i 1998 ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny Bono utvidelse av
opphavsrettsvernetid</span>»</span>-loven vedtatt som utvidet vernetiden for
eksisterende og fremtidige opphavsretter med tyve år.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8915856"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7770096"></a><p>
Effekten av disse utvidelsene er ganske enkelt *å skattelegge*, eller
forsinke, når verk faller i det fri og blir allemannseie. Denne siste
første tjue årene etter Sonny Bono-loven, samtidig som en million patenter
har blitt allemannseie, ikke være et eneste opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk som
har falt i det fri på grunn av utløp av vernetiden i opphavsretten.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8918432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7772672"></a><p>
Effekten av disse endringene har blitt forverret av en annen endring i
opphavsrettsloven som få har lagt merke til. Husk at jeg sa at
grunnlovsforfatterne etablerte et to-delt opphavsrettsregime, som krevde at
opphavsrettsbeskyttelse raskt ville bli allemannseie. De gjenværende
beskyttede verk ville være de som hadde en viss vedvarende kommersiell
verdi.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8921024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8921888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8923008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7775200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7776064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7777184"></a><p>
USA forlot dette fornuftige systemet i 1976. For alle verk skapt etter 1978
var det kun en vernetid—maksimal vernetid. For
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturlige</span>»</span> forfattere var vernetiden livstid pluss femti år.
etter disse endringene i opphavsrettsloven. På tross av kravet om av
vernetiden skal være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> så har vi ingen indikasjoner
på at noe vil begrense den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8927392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8928608"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7781568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7782784"></a><p>
Effekten av disse endringene på den gjennomsnittlige varigheten for
opphavsretten er dramatisk. I 1973 unnlot mer enn 85 prosent av
opphavsrettsinnehaverne å fornye sin opphavsrett. Det betyr at den
gjennomsnittlige vernetiden i 1973 var kun 32.2 år. På grunn av fjerningen
av kravet om fornying er nå den gjennomsnittlige vernetiden den maksimale
vernetiden. På tredve år har dermed den gjennomsnittlige vernetiden blitt
-tredoblet, fra 32.2 år til 95 år.<a href="#ftn.idp8930864" class="footnote" name="idp8930864"><sup class="footnote">[127]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8932768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8934016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8935408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8936752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8938032"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Omfang</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
+tredoblet, fra 32.2 år til 95 år.<a href="#ftn.idp7785104" class="footnote" name="idp7785104"><sup class="footnote">[127]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7787008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7788256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7789584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7790928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7792272"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Omfang</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightscopeof"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Omfanget</span>»</span> for opphavsretten er den rekken av rettigheter
tildelt gjennom lovverket. Omfanget for USAs opphavsrett har endret seg
dramatisk. Disse endringene er ikke nødvendigvis dårlige, men vi bør forstå
omfanget av endringer hvis vi skal forholde oss til sammenhengen i denne
debatten.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8944128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7798288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkshistoricalshiftincopyrightcoverageof"></a><p>
I 1790 var omfanget veldig smalt. Opphavsretten dekket kun <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kart,
diagrammer og bøker.</span>»</span> Det betyr at den ikke dekket for eksempel
musikk og arkitektur. Viktigere, opphavsretten tildelte forfatteren
ordet <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. For mesteparten av historien til USAs
opphavsrettslov var det også et krav at verket ble innlevert til
myndighetene før en opphavsrett kunne sikres.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8960656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7814848"></a><p>
Årsaken til registreringskravet var den fornuftige forståelsen av at for de
fleste verk var det ikke nødvendig med opphavsrettsbeskyttelse. Igjen, i de
første ti årene av republikken ble 95 prosent av verk som kunne mottatt
for å sikre at etter at vernetidens utløp ville det eksistere et eksemplar
av verket en eller annen plass slik at det kunne kopieres av andre uten å
spore opp den opprinnelige forfatteren.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8964848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7819040"></a><p>
Alle disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalitetene</span>»</span> ble avskaffet i USAs system da vi
bestemte oss for å følge europeisk opphavsrettslov. Det er ikke lenger krav
om at du registrerer et verk for å få opphavsrettsbeskyttelse.
Opphavsrettsbeskyttelsen er nå automatisk. Opphavsretten eksisterer uansett
om du merker ditt verk med ©, og opphavsretten eksisterer uansett om du
faktisk gjør verket tilgjengelig for kopiering av andre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8966480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8968640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8969840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7820768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7822928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7824128"></a><p>
La oss se på et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse
forskjellene.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightact2"></a><p>
registrerte opphavsretten for den boken, så ville opphavsrettsloven beskytte
deg mot at andre utgivere tok boken din og publiserte den på nytt uten din
tillatelse. Målet med loven var å regulere utgivere for å hindre denne
-typen urimelig konkurranse. I 1790 var det 174 utgivere i USA.<a href="#ftn.idp8973488" class="footnote" name="idp8973488"><sup class="footnote">[128]</sup></a> Opphavsrettslovgivingen var dermed en liten
+typen urimelig konkurranse. I 1790 var det 174 utgivere i USA.<a href="#ftn.idp7827728" class="footnote" name="idp7827728"><sup class="footnote">[128]</sup></a> Opphavsrettslovgivingen var dermed en liten
regulering av en liten andel av et liten del av det kreative markedet i
USA—utgivere.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs3"></a><p>
av den, så var ingen av disse aktivitetene regulert av den opprinnelige
opphavsrettsloven. Disse kreative aktivitetene forble frie, mens
aktivitetene til utgiverne ble begrenset.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8983584"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7838016"></a><p>
I dag er historien svært annerledes: Hvis du skriver en bok er boken din
automatisk beskyttet. Faktisk gjelder det ikke bare boken din. Enhver
epost, hver notat til din kjære, hver krusedull, <span class="emphasis"><em>hver
opphavsrettsinnehaveren. Opphavsretten er med andre ord ikke bare en
eksklusiv rett til dine skrifter, men en eksklusiv rett til dine skrifter og
en stor andel av skriftene inspirert av dem.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8989392"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7843888"></a><p>
Det er denne retten til avledede verk som ville synes mest sært for de som
laget grunnloven vår, selv om det har blitt helt naturlig for oss. I
utgangspunktet ble denne utvidelsen laget for å håndtere de åpenbare
Men uansett hvor galt <span class="emphasis"><em>det</em></span> er, omforming av andres verk
er en annen type galt. Noen ser ikke på omforminger som galt i det hele
tatt—de mener at vår lovverk, slik grunnlovsforfatterne formulerte
-den, ikke skulle beskytte avledede verk i det hele tatt.<a href="#ftn.idp8993392" class="footnote" name="idp8993392"><sup class="footnote">[129]</sup></a> Uansett om du går så langt eller ikke, så virker
+den, ikke skulle beskytte avledede verk i det hele tatt.<a href="#ftn.idp7847888" class="footnote" name="idp7847888"><sup class="footnote">[129]</sup></a> Uansett om du går så langt eller ikke, så virker
det klart at det som er galt med omforming er fundamentalt forskjellig fra
det som er galt med direkte piratvirksomhet.
</p><p>
Likevel behandler opphavsrettsloven disse to ulike forbudte handlingene på
samme måte. Jeg kan gå til domstolen å få en forføyning mot din
piratkopiering av min bok. Jeg kan gå til domstolen å få en forføyning mot
-din omformende bruk av min bok.<a href="#ftn.idp8998528" class="footnote" name="idp8998528"><sup class="footnote">[130]</sup></a> Disse
+din omformende bruk av min bok.<a href="#ftn.idp7853024" class="footnote" name="idp7853024"><sup class="footnote">[130]</sup></a> Disse
to ulike bruksmåtene for mitt kreative verk behandles likt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9002176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9003520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9004336"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7856640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7858032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7858848"></a><p>
Dette kan virke riktig for deg. Hvis jeg skrev en bok, hvorfor skal du ha
mulighet til å lage en film som tar historien min og tjener penger fra den
uten å betale meg eller kreditere meg? Eller hvis Disney lager en figur
deriverte rettigheter er grunnløse. Mitt mål akkurat nå er mye smalere:
ganske enkelt å gjøre det klart at denne utvidelsen er en betydelig endring
fra de opprinnelig tildelte rettighetene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9007648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9008848"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7862160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7863424"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawscopeof"></a><p>
Mens loven opprinnelig kun regulerte forleggere, så betyr endringen i
opphavsrettens omfang at loven i dag regulerer forleggere, brukere og
forfattere. Det regulerer dem på grunn av at alle tre er i stand til å lage
kopier, og kjernen til reguleringen i opphavsrettsloven er
-kopier.<a href="#ftn.idp9016048" class="footnote" name="idp9016048"><sup class="footnote">[131]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9020272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
+kopier.<a href="#ftn.idp7870688" class="footnote" name="idp7870688"><sup class="footnote">[131]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7874912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyotherpropertyrightsvs2"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopier.</span>»</span> Det høres helt klart ut som noe opphavsrettsloven
ettertanke være åpenbart i verden med Internet, så bør eksemplarfremstilling
<span class="emphasis"><em>ikke</em></span> aktivisere opphavsrettsloven. For å være presis,
bør de ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>alltid</em></span> aktivisere opphavsrettsloven.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9027744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7882448"></a><p>
Dette er kanskje den sentrale påstanden i denne boken, så la meg ta dette
veldig sakte slik at en ikke går enkelt glipp av poenget. Min påstand er at
Internett i hvert fall bør tvinge oss til å tenke gjennom forholdene der
-opphavsrettsloven automatisk kommer til anvendelse,<a href="#ftn.idp9029904" class="footnote" name="idp9029904"><sup class="footnote">[132]</sup></a> da det er klart at dagens rekkevidde for
+opphavsrettsloven automatisk kommer til anvendelse,<a href="#ftn.idp7884608" class="footnote" name="idp7884608"><sup class="footnote">[132]</sup></a> da det er klart at dagens rekkevidde for
opphavsretten aldri ble vurdert, og lang mindre valgt, av lovgiverne som
vedtok opphavsrettsloven.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9031648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9032880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7886352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7887520"></a><p>
Vi kan se dette poenget helt abstrakt ved å starte med denne i hovedsak
tomme sirkel.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.7. Alle potensielle bruksmåter for en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1521.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Alle potensielle bruksmåter for en bok."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksthreetypesofusesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetcopyrightapplicabilityalteredbytechnologyof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtechnologycopyrightintentalteredby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs4"></a><p>
opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk. Det er den paradigmatiske bruken som er korrekt
regulert av opphavsrettsreguleringen (se diagram i <a class="xref" href="#fig-1541" title="Figur 10.9. Å utgi på nytt står i midten av denne sirkelen av mulige bruksmåter for et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk.">Figur 10.9, «Å utgi på nytt står i midten av denne sirkelen av mulige bruksmåter for et
opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk.»</a>).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9055712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9057072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7910192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7911552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuse"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawfairuseand2"></a><p>
Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
forblir uregulert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
bruk.</span>»</span>
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.9. Å utgi på nytt står i midten av denne sirkelen av mulige bruksmåter for et
-opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1541.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Å utgi på nytt står i midten av denne sirkelen av mulige bruksmåter for et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9065600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9066720"></a><p>
+opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/nb/1541.svg" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Å utgi på nytt står i midten av denne sirkelen av mulige bruksmåter for et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7920208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7921328"></a><p>
Dette er bruksmåter som selv involverer kopiering, men som loven håndterer
som uregulert da samfunnshensyn krever at de forblir uregulert. Du står
fritt til å sitere fra denne boken, selv i en anmeldelse som er ganske
I den fysiske verden er dermed mulig bruk av en bok delt i tre typer: (1)
uregulert bruk, (2) regulert bruk og (3) regulert bruk som likevel anses
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig</span>»</span> uavhengig av opphavsrettseierens syn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9077904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9082912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7932688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetbookson2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7937696"></a><p>
Så kom Internett—et distribuert, digitalt nettverk hvor enhver bruk av
-et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk produserer en kopi.<a href="#ftn.idp9017248" class="footnote" name="idp9017248"><sup class="footnote">[133]</sup></a> Og på grunn av denne ene, vilkårlige egenskapen i
+et opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk produserer en kopi.<a href="#ftn.idp7871888" class="footnote" name="idp7871888"><sup class="footnote">[133]</sup></a> Og på grunn av denne ene, vilkårlige egenskapen i
utformingen av digitale nettverk, endres dekningsområdet for kategori 1
dramatisk. Bruk som tidligere ble antatt å ikke være regulert er nå antatt
å være regulert. Det finnes ikke lenger et sett med antatt uregulert
bruk også lager en kopi—kategori 1 blir suget inn i kategori 2. Og de
som vil forsvare den uregulerte bruken av opphavsrettsbeskyttede verk må nå
kun se til kategori 3, rimelig bruk, for å bære byrden av denne endringen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9084304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9088992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7941168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7943888"></a><p>
Så la meg være svært spesifikk for å gjøre dette generelle poenget helt
klart. Før Internett, hvis du kjøpte en bok og leste den ti ganger, så
at opphavsrettsloven kom til anvendelse og det dermed heller ikke var behov
for å argumentere med rimelig bruk for å forsvare seg. Retten til å lese var
effektivt beskyttet tidligere på grunn av at lesing ikke var regulert.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9112576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9113920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9115312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9116640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9117968"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7967440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7968784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7970176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7971504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7972832"></a><p>
Dette poenget om rimelig er fullstendig ignorert, selv av talsmenn for fri
kultur. Vi har havnet i et hjørne der vi må argumentere for at våre
rettigheter er avhenging av rimelig bruk—og har aldri adressert det
beskyttelse med utgangspunkt i rimelig bruk gir mening når det store
flertall av bruksområder <span class="emphasis"><em>ikke er regulert</em></span>. Men når alt
blir antatt å være regulert, så blir rimelig bruk-beskyttelsen ikke nok.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9121264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9122512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9123776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9125088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9126336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9127664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9128944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7976128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7977312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7978576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7979824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7981072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7982464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp7983808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxvideopipeline"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmindustrytraileradvertisementsof"></a><p>
Tilfellet Video Pipeline er et godt eksempel. Video Pipeline sin forretning
var å gjøre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">filmtrailere</span>»</span> tilgjengelige i videobutikker.
Videobutikkene viste frem trailerne som en måte å selge filmer. Video
Pipeline fikk trailerne fra filmdistributørene, puttet trailerne på kassett
og solgte kassettene til detaljutsalgene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9136544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7991456"></a><p>
Selskapet gjorde dette i omtrent femten år. Så, 1997, begynte det å tenke
på Internett som en annen måte å distribuere disse forhåndsvisningene på.
Idéen var å utvide deres <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selge ved å vise prøver</span>»</span>-teknikk ved
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">surfing.</span>»</span> Akkurat slik som du i en bokhandel kan lese noen få
sider av en bok før du kjøper boken, så ville du på samme måte også kunne ta
en titt på en bit av filmen på nettet før du kjøpte den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9141136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
7995984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawcopiesascoreissueof3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfairuselegalintimidationtacticsagainst2"></a><p>
I 1998 informerte Video Pipeline Disney og andre filmdistributører at de
planla å distribuere trailere via Internet (i stedet for å sende kassetter)
distribuere klippene slik de hadde gjort. Så de leverte inn et søksmål for
å be domstolene om å erklære at disse rettighetene faktisk var deres
rettigheter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9146640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9149392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9154592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8001424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8004176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightusagerestrictionsattachedto2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitswillfulinfringementfindingsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8009344"></a><p>
Disney sendte inn motsøksmål—om 100 millioner dollar i skader. Disse
skadene ble estimert ut fra et krav om at Video Pipeline hadde
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bevisst krenket</span>»</span> Disneys opphavsrett. Når en domstol
retten var at butikkene hadde lov til å selge filmene, og de hadde lov til å
liste opp titlene til filmene de solgte, men de hadde ikke lov til å vise
klipp fra filmene for å kunne selge dem, uten tillatelse fra Disney.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9158160"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8012912"></a><p>
Du tenker kanskje nå at dette er en avgjort sak, og jeg tror domstolene også
anser dette som en avgjort sak. Poenget mitt her er å kartlegge endringen
som gir Disney denne makten. Før Internett kunne ikke Disney egentlig
opphavsrettseierens kontroll. Teknologien utvider omfanget av effektiv
kontroll, på grunn av at teknologien bygger en kopi inn i hver eneste
transaksjon.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9161088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9162352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9163600"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9164928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9166320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9167696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9169040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9169856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9170672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8015840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8017104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8018416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8019808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8021200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8022576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8023936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8024752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8025568"></a><p>
Det er ingen tvil, et potensiale er ennå ikke et misbruk, og dermed er
endring forårsaket av Internett forsterker dens betydning. Denne andre
endringen endrer ikke rekkevidden til opphavsrettreguleringen. Den påvirker
hvordan slik regulering blir håndhevet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9176592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9177760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8031424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8032592"></a><p>
I verden før digital teknologi var det generelt rettsvesenet som
kontrollerte hvorvidt og hvordan noe ble regulert av
åndsverkloven. Rettsvesenet, i betydningen en domstol, i betydningen en
dommer. Til sist var det et menneske, trenet i tradisjonen til rettsvesenet
og følsom for balansene som denne tradisjonen omfavnet, som sa hvorvidt og
hvordan loven skulle begrense din frihet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9179952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8034784"></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.<a href="#ftn.idp9185152" class="footnote" name="idp9185152"><sup class="footnote">[134]</sup></a>
+juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<a href="#ftn.idp8040032" class="footnote" name="idp8040032"><sup class="footnote">[134]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt. De advarte
Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
-det.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9188208" class="footnote" name="idp9188208"><sup class="footnote">[135]</sup></a> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
+det.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8043088" class="footnote" name="idp8043088"><sup class="footnote">[135]</sup></a> 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>.
bestemmer. Og problemet med kildekodebaserte reguleringer er at kildekode,
i motsetning til domstolene, ikke eier skam. Kildekode forstår ikke humoren
til Marx-brødrene. Konsekvensen av det er over hodet ikke morsomt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9195856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9197168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8050688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8051936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
En e-bok er en bok levert i elektronisk form. En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
bruker til å levere e-bøker. Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren
leverer innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
</p><p>
-I <a class="xref" href="#fig-1611" title="Figur 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.">Figur 10.12, «Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.»</a> er et bilde av en eldre versjon av min Adobe
-eBook Reader.
+I <a class="xref" href="#fig-example-adobe-ebook-reader" title="Figur 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.">Figur 10.12, «Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.»</a> er et bilde av en eldre
+versjon av min Adobe eBook Reader.
</p><p>
Som du kan se har jeg en liten samling med e-bøker i dette
<em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> først. Hvis du klikker på min e-bok-kopi
av <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, så får du se et avansert omslag og en
knapp nederst ved navn Tillatelser.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-
1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1611.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-
example-adobe-ebook-reader"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/example-adobe-ebook-reader.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Hvis du klikker på Tillatelser-knappen, så får du se en liste med
tillatelser som utgiveren ønsker å tildele med denne boken.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.13. Liste med tillatelser som utgiveren har til hensikt å gi.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1612.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Liste med tillatelser som utgiveren har til hensikt å gi."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
til å skrive ut ti sider fra boken hver tiende dag. Til sist har jeg
tillatelse til å bruke Les Høyt-knappen for å høre
<em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> lest høyt ved hjelp av datamaskinen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9213328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9214144"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8068192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8069008"></a><p>
Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>.
</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1621.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles «Politikk»"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
I henholdt til dens tillatelser, er det absolutt ikke tillatt med utskrift
eller kopiering. Heldigvis kan en bruke Les Høyt-knappen for å høre boken.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk
.</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1622.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Aristoteles «Politikk.»"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp9222256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9223088"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk
</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="50%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1622.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Aristoteles «Politikk»."></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp8077312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8078144"></a><p>
Til slutt (og mest pinlig), her er tillatelsene for den originale
e-bok-versjonen av min siste bok, <em class="citetitle">The Future of
Ideas</em>:
opphavsretten har opphavsrettsinnehaveren helt klart denne
myndigheten—innefor begrensningene i opphavsrettsloven. Men for verk
som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten er det ingen slik opphavsrettslig
-myndighet.<a href="#ftn.idp9229072" class="footnote" name="idp9229072"><sup class="footnote">[136]</sup></a> Når min e-bok
+myndighet.<a href="#ftn.idp8084128" class="footnote" name="idp8084128"><sup class="footnote">[136]</sup></a> Når min e-bok
<em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> sier at jeg kun har tillatelse til å
kopiere ti tekstutvalg inn i minnet hver tiende dag, så betyr dette egentlig
at eBook Reader har gjort det mulig for utgiveren å kontrollere hvordan jeg
å lese boken min høyt — det er ikke at selskapet vil saksøke deg hvis
du gjør det. I stedet er det at hvis du trykker på Les Høyt-knappen med min
bok, så vil maskinen ganske enkelt ikke lese høyt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9234192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9236768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8089248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8091824"></a><p>
Dette er kontroller, ikke tillatelser. Forestill deg en verden der
bruke en datamaskin til å lese boken høyt, ville Adobe akseptere at slik
bruk av en eBook Reader var rimelig? Adobe svarte ikke fordi svaret,
uansett hvor absurd det høres ut, er nei.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9255984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9257312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8111088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8112416"></a><p>
Poenget er ikke å skylde på Adobe. Faktisk er Adobe blant de mest
nyskapende selskapene som utvikler strategier for å balansere åpen tilgang
til innhold med incentiver for selskaper til å være nyskapende. Men Adobes
teknologi muliggjør kontroll, og Adobe har et incentiv til å forsvare denne
kontrollen. Dette incentivet er forståelig, selv om resultatet ofte er
galskap.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9259632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9260896"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8114736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8116000"></a><p>
For å se dette poenget i en spesielt absurd sammenheng, la oss se på en av
mine favoritthistorier som får fram det samme poenget.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
ga brukere av Aibo-kjæledyret informasjon om hvordan de skulle hacke sin
data-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hund</span>»</span> for å få den til å gjøre nye triks (derav
aibohack.com).
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9272464"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8127616"></a><p>
Hvis du ikke er en programmerer eller ikke kjenner mange programmerere, så
gir ordet <em class="citetitle">hack</em> spesielt uvennlige assosiasjoner.
Ikke-programmerere hakker busker og ugress. Ikke-programmerere i skrekkfiler
til å danse jass. Hunden var i utgangspunktet ikke programmert til å kunne
danse jazz. Det var utrolig smart fikling som gjorde hunden til en mer
talentfull skapning enn det Sony hadde bygd.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9278896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9280208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9281520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8134048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8135296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8136608"></a><p>
Jeg har fortalt denne historien i mange sammenhenger, både i og utenfor
USA. En gang ble jeg spurt av et forbløffet medlem av publikum om det er
lovlig aktivitet. En kan se for seg at eieren av aibopet.com tenkte at
<span class="emphasis"><em>Hva i alle dager kan være galt med å lære en robothund å
danse?</em></span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9284928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8139920"></a><p>
La oss la den hunden sove et øyeblikk, og snu oss mot et
ponni-show—ikke bokstavelig, men heller en artikkel som akademikeren
Ed Felten ved Princeton skrev til en konferanse. Denne
Microsofts advokat holdt Ed Felten stand. Han lot seg ikke bølle til
stillhet om noe som han kunne svært godt.
</p><p>
-Men Feltens mot ble virkelig testet i april 2001.<a href="#ftn.idp9288032" class="footnote" name="idp9288032"><sup class="footnote">[137]</sup></a> Han og en gruppe kolleger arbeidet med en artikkel
+Men Feltens mot ble virkelig testet i april 2001.<a href="#ftn.idp8143024" class="footnote" name="idp8143024"><sup class="footnote">[137]</sup></a> Han og en gruppe kolleger arbeidet med en artikkel
som skulle sendes inn til en konferanse. Artikkelen skulle beskrive
svakhetene i et krypteringssystem som ble utviklet av Secure Digital Music
Initiative (SDMI) som en teknikk for å kontrollere distribusjon av musikk.
AIBO-programvarens kopibeskyttelsesprotokoll og utgjør et brudd på
anti-omgåelsesbestemmelsene i Opphavsrettslov for et Digitalt Århundre
(DMCA).
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9309872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9311120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9312368"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8164880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8166192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8167504"></a><p>
Og selv om en akademisk artikkel som beskriver svakheten i et
krypteringssystem også bør være helt lovlig, mottok Felten et brev fra
advokaten til RIAA som lød:
Enhver offentliggjøring av informasjon mottatt ved å delta i Offentlig
Utfordring vil være utenfor rammen av aktiviteter tillatt av Avtalen og kan
-utsette deg og din forskergruppe for *handlinger* i henhold til
+utsette deg og din forskergruppe for reaksjoner i henhold til
Opphavsrettslov for et Digitalt Århundre (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
</p></blockquote></div><p>
I begge tilfeller har denne sære Orwellske loven blitt tatt i bruk for å
opphavsrettsbeskyttelsesmekanismer. Den ble utformet til å forby disse
enhetene, uansett om bruken av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale som ble gjort
mulig ved denne omgåelsen ville vært brudd på opphavsretten eller ikke.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9322896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9323712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9324528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8178032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8178848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8179664"></a><p>
Aibopet.com og Felten demonstrerer dette poenget. Aibo-hacket omgikk et
opphavsrettsbeskyttelses-system med det formål å gjøre det mulig for hunden
advokat, en teknologi for å omgå opphavsretten. Dermed, selv om han ikke
selv brøt noens opphavsrett, gjorde hans akademiske artikkel det mulig for
andre å bryte andres opphavsrett.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9328384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8183520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
Særheten i disse argumentene ble tatt på kornet i en vitsetegning fra 1981
av Paul Conrad. På den tiden avgjorde en domstol i California at en
videoopptaker kunne forbys på grunn av at det var opphavsrettsbrytende
bruksområder for denne teknologien: For eksempel hadde Fred Rogers, kjent
som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> vitnet i saken at han
ønsket folk skulle stå fritt til å ta opp Mr. Rogers
-Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9332672"></a>
+Neighborhood. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8187920"></a>
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Noen allmennkringkastere, i tillegg til kommersielle stasjoner, legger
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> inn i sendeplanen på tidspunkt der noen barn
at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du er en viktig person akkurat slik du er. Du kan ta sunne
avgjørelser.</span>»</span> Kanskje holder jeg på for lenge, men jeg føler bare at
alt som tillater en person å være mer aktiv i å kontrollere hans eller
-hennes liv, på en sunn måte, er viktig.<a href="#ftn.idp9337456" class="footnote" name="idp9337456"><sup class="footnote">[138]</sup></a>
+hennes liv, på en sunn måte, er viktig.<a href="#ftn.idp8192800" class="footnote" name="idp8192800"><sup class="footnote">[138]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
videoopptakere ansvarlige.
</p><p>
Dette fikk Conrad til å tegne vitsetegningen under, som vi også kan ta i
-bruk for DMCA. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9343584"></a>
+bruk for DMCA. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8198928"></a>
</p><p>
Intet argument jeg har kan overgå dette bildet, men la meg forsøke å komme i
nærheten.
skyte på blink eller til å beskytte seg mot en inntrenger. I hvert fall
noen vil si at slik bruk er bra. Dette er også en teknologi som har bra og
dårlige bruksområder.
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. Vitsetegning om videospiller/håndvåpen</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="70%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1711.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Vitsetegning om videospiller/håndvåpen"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9351808"></a><p>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. Vitsetegning om videospiller/håndvåpen</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="70%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/1711.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Vitsetegning om videospiller/håndvåpen"></td></tr></table></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8207136"></a><p>
Det åpenbare poenget med vitsetegningen til Conrad er det merkelige med en
verden hvor håndvåpen er lovlige, på tross av skaden de gjør, mens
videspillere (og omgåelsesteknologier) er ulovlige. Merk: <span class="emphasis"><em>Ingen
loven omgåelsesteknologier fullstendig, på tross av potensialet de har for å
bidra positivt, men tillater håndvåpen, på tross den åpenbare og tragiske
skaden de gjør.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9354352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9355552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9356864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9357680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9358496"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8209680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8210928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8212240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8213056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8213872"></a><p>
Eksemplene med Aibo og RIAA demonstrerer hvordan opphavsrettseiere endrer
balansen som opphavsretten gir. Ved hjelp av programkode begrenser
opphavsrettseierne rimelig bruk. Ved hjelp av DMCA straffer de dem som vil
Der er et siste aspekt av samspillet mellom arkitektur og lovverk som bidrar
til å styrke kraften til opphavsrettsreguleringen. Dette er hvor enkelt
slike brudd på opphavsrettsloven kan oppdages. For i motsetning til
-retorikken som er vanlig rundt *fødselen til cyberspace*, om at på Internett
-vet ingen at du er en hund, så er det i stadig større grad gitt endrede
+retorikken som var vanlig da cyberspace ble skapt, om at på Internett vet
+ingen at du er en hund, så er det i stadig større grad på grunn av endrede
teknologier som rulles ut på Internett, enkelt å finne hunden som har gjort
noe juridisk galt. Teknologiene på Internett er åpent for både snushaner og
de som vil dele, og snushanene blir stadig bedre i å spore opp identiteten
kanskje rollespille en slags tilhenger-fantasi om showet. En person spiller
Spock, en annen Kaptein Kirk. Karakterene ville starte med et plot fra en
virkelig historie, og deretter ganske enkelt fortsette
-historien.<a href="#ftn.idp9365440" class="footnote" name="idp9365440"><sup class="footnote">[139]</sup></a>
+historien.<a href="#ftn.idp8220816" class="footnote" name="idp8220816"><sup class="footnote">[139]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Før Internett var dette effektivt sett en helt uregulert aktivitet. Uansett
hva som skjedde på innsiden i din egen klubb, så ville du aldri bli
forstyrret av opphavsrettspolitiet. Du var her fri til å gjøre som du ville
med denne delen av kulturen vår. Du hadde lov til å bygge på den som du
ønsket uten å frykte juridisk kontroll.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9368720"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8224096"></a><p>
Men hvis du flyttet klubben din til Internett, og gjorde den generelt
tilgjengelig for andre å delta, så ville historien bli svært forskjellig.
Roboter som søker igjennom nettet etter brudd på varemerke og
bli ekstremt kostbart. Opphavsrettsloven er ekstremt effektiv. Straffene
er alvorlige, og prosessen er rask.
</p><p>
-Denne endringen i den effektive *makten til loven* er forårsaket av en
-endring i hvor enkelt loven kan håndheves. Denne endringen flytter også
-lovens balanse radikalt. Det er som om bilen din sendte ut hastigheten du
-kjørte med på et hvert tidspunkt. Det ville bare være et steg igjen før
-staten begynte å utstede fartsbøter basert på informasjonen du sender ut.
-Det er effektivt sett det som skjer her.
+Denne endringen i den effektive makten til rettsvesenet er forårsaket av en
+endring i hvor enkelt lovverket kan håndheves. Denne endringen flytter også
+rettsvesenets balanse radikalt. Det er som om bilen din sendte ut
+hastigheten du kjørte med på et hvert tidspunkt. Det ville bare være et
+steg igjen før staten begynte å utstede fartsbøter basert på informasjonen
+du sender ut. Det er effektivt sett det som skjer her.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrering</h2></div></div></div><p>
Så opphavsrettens varighet har økt dramatisk—tredoblet seg de siste
</p><p>
Det er to typer endringer her: omfanget av konsentrering, og dets
egenskaper.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9378848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9379632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9380416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9381200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9382016"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9382832"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8234240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8235024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8235808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8236592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8237408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8238224"></a><p>
Endringer i omfang er blant de enklere å beskrive. Som senator John McCain
oppsummerte i data produsert i FCCs gjennomgang av medie-eierskap,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire selskaper kontrollerer 85 prosent av våre
-mediekilder.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9384608" class="footnote" name="idp9384608"><sup class="footnote">[140]</sup></a> De fem
+mediekilder.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8240000" class="footnote" name="idp8240000"><sup class="footnote">[140]</sup></a> De fem
plateselskapene Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner
Music Group, og EMI kontrollerer 84,8 prosent av musikkmarkedet i
-USA.<a href="#ftn.idp9385984" class="footnote" name="idp9385984"><sup class="footnote">[141]</sup></a> De <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fem største
+USA.<a href="#ftn.idp8241376" class="footnote" name="idp8241376"><sup class="footnote">[141]</sup></a> De <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fem største
kabel-selskapene formidler sendinger til 74 prosent av kabel-TV-abonnenter
-over hele landet.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9388160" class="footnote" name="idp9388160"><sup class="footnote">[142]</sup></a>
+over hele landet.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8243552" class="footnote" name="idp8243552"><sup class="footnote">[142]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Radioens historie er enda mer dramatisk. Før avreguleringen, eide landets
største kringkasterne 74 prosent av inntektene i dette markedet. Totalt
kontrollerer kun fire selskaper 90 prosent av nasjonens annonseinntekter på
radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9392224"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8247664"></a><p>
Aviseierskap er også i ferd med å bli mer konsentrert. I dag er det seks
hundre færre dagsaviser i USA enn det var for åtti år siden, og ti selskaper
kontrollerer halvparten av nasjonens avisdistribusjon. Det er tjue større
kabel-inntekt. Dette er et marked langt fra den frie pressen som
grunnlovsforfatterne ønsket å beskytte. Faktisk, så er dette et marked som
er svært godt beskyttet — av markedet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9393232"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8248672"></a><p>
Størrelseskonsentrering er en ting. En mer betenkelig endring er i
egenskapene til den konsentreringen. Som forfatter James Fallows formulerer
det i en fersk artikkel om Rupert Murdoch,
distribusjonssystem som lar innholdet nå forbrukerne. Murdochs
satellittsystem distribuerer nå News Corp.-innhold i Europa og Asia. Hvis
Murdoch blir største enkelteier i DirecTV, så vil dette systemet få samme
-funksjon i USA.<a href="#ftn.idp9396448" class="footnote" name="idp9396448"><sup class="footnote">[143]</sup></a>
+funksjon i USA.<a href="#ftn.idp8251888" class="footnote" name="idp8251888"><sup class="footnote">[143]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Mønsteret med Murdoch er mønsteret til moderne medier. Ikke bare at store
selskaper eier mange radiostasjoner, men noen få selskaper som eier så mange
</p><p>
Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
er viktig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9406144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9406928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9407712"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8261680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8262464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8263248"></a><p>
I 1969 laget Norman Lear en pilot for <em class="citetitle">All in the
Family</em>. Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
De sa til Lear at den var for på kanten. Gjør det på nytt. Lear lagde
I stedet for å føye seg, tok Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke hindre Lear fra å gå til
andre. Opphavsretten Lear hadde sikret at han var uavhengighet av
-nettverk-kontroll.<a href="#ftn.idp9410688" class="footnote" name="idp9410688"><sup class="footnote">[144]</sup></a>
+nettverk-kontroll.<a href="#ftn.idp8266224" class="footnote" name="idp8266224"><sup class="footnote">[144]</sup></a>
</p><p>
for et nettverk laget av et selskap nettverket kontrollerte. I fjor var
prosentandelen show produsert av kontrollerte selskaper mer enn firedoblet
til 77 prosent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I 1992 ble 16 nye serier produsert uavhengig
-av konglomerat-kontroll. I fjor var det kun en.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9417200" class="footnote" name="idp9417200"><sup class="footnote">[145]</sup></a> I 2002 var 75 prosent av kjernetids-TV eid av
+av konglomerat-kontroll. I fjor var det kun en.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8272736" class="footnote" name="idp8272736"><sup class="footnote">[145]</sup></a> I 2002 var 75 prosent av kjernetids-TV eid av
nettverket som sendte det. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I tiårsperioden mellom 1992 og 2002 økte
antall timer per uke produsert av nettverks-studioer med over 200%, mens
antall timer per uke med kjernetids-TV produsert av uavhengige studioer ble
-redusert med 63%.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9419968" class="footnote" name="idp9419968"><sup class="footnote">[146]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9420960"></a><p>
+redusert med 63%.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8275504" class="footnote" name="idp8275504"><sup class="footnote">[146]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8276496"></a><p>
I dag ville en annen Norman Lear med en annen <em class="citetitle">All in the
Family</em> oppdage at han har valget mellom å enten gjøre serien
mindre på kanten eller få sparken. Innholdet i ethvert show utviklet for et
nettverk er i stadig større grad eid av nettverket.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9423040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9423856"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8278576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8279392"></a><p>
Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
snevret inn fra få til stadig færre. Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
deres kontrollerte distribusjons-system, så får du færre og færre faktiske
stemmer som deltar i prosessen. Vi hadde tidligere dusinvis med levende
uavhengige produksjonsselskaper som laget TV-programmer. Nå har vi mindre
-enn en håndfull.<a href="#ftn.idp9426656" class="footnote" name="idp9426656"><sup class="footnote">[147]</sup></a>
+enn en håndfull.<a href="#ftn.idp8282192" class="footnote" name="idp8282192"><sup class="footnote">[147]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Denne innsnevringen har en effekt på det som blir produsert. Produktet fra
slike store og konsentrerte nettverk er stadig mer ensrettet. Stadig mer
konsekvenser—ikke nødvendigvis forvisning til Sibir, men likefullt
straff. Uavhengige, kritiske, avvikende syn blir skvist ut. Dette er ikke
en omgivelse for demokrati.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9429936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8285392"></a><p>
Økonomifaget tilbyr selv en parallell som forklarer hvorfor denne
integrasjonen påvirker kreativitet. Clay Christensen har skrevet om
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">innovatørenes dilemma</span>»</span>: faktumet at store tradisjonelle
selskaper finner det rasjonelt å ignorerer nye, gjennombrytende teknologier
som konkurrerer med deres kjernevirksomhet. Den samme analysen kan bidra
til å forklare hvorfor tradisjonelle medieselskaper finner det rasjonelt å
-ignorere nye kulturelle trender.<a href="#ftn.idp9433792" class="footnote" name="idp9433792"><sup class="footnote">[148]</sup></a>
+ignorere nye kulturelle trender.<a href="#ftn.idp8289248" class="footnote" name="idp8289248"><sup class="footnote">[148]</sup></a>
Sovende giganter lar ikke bare være, men bør ikke løpe. Og likevel, hvis
banen kun er åpen for gigantene, så vil det bli alt for lite
-løping. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9437360"></a>
+løping. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8292816"></a>
</p><p>
Jeg tror ikke vi vet nok om økonomien i mediemarkedet til å si med sikkerhet
hva konsentreringen og integrasjonen vil gjøre. Effektivitetsendringene er
og det er gjennom avstemming vi skal velge politikken. Men for å gjøre det
er vi fundamentalt avhengig av pressen for å hjelpe til med å informere
amerikanerne om disse temaene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommercials"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtelevisionadvertisingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9448368"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcommercials"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtelevisionadvertisingon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8304000"></a><p>
I 1998 lanserte kontoret for den nasjonale narkotikapolitikken en
mediekampanje som del av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krigen mot narkotika.</span>»</span> Kampanjen
produserte en rekke korte filmklipp om temaer relatert til ulovlige
pengene. Anta at en gruppe med bekymrede borgere donerer alle pengene i
verden for å hjelpe deg med å få budskapet ditt ut. Kan du da være sikker
på at budskapet ditt vil bli hørt?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9453792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9454880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9455728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9456864"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8309424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8310512"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8311360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8312496"></a><p>
Nei, det kan du ikke. TV-stasjoner har en generell regel om å unngå
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kontroversielle</span>»</span> annonser. Annonser sponset av myndighetene
anses som ukontroversielle. Annonser som er uenig med myndighetene er
rett til å velge hva de sender. Dermed vil de store kommersielle
mediekanalene blokkere muligheten den en siden av en viktig debatt har til å
legge frem sin sak. Og domstolene vil forsvare stasjonenes rett til å være
-så ensidig.<a href="#ftn.idp9459792" class="footnote" name="idp9459792"><sup class="footnote">[149]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9473376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9474688"></a><p>
+så ensidig.<a href="#ftn.idp8315424" class="footnote" name="idp8315424"><sup class="footnote">[149]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8329056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8330368"></a><p>
Jeg ville også med glede forsvart nettverkenes rettigheter—hvis vi
levde i et mediemarked som virkelig var mangfoldig. Men konsentreringen i
media får en til å tvile på den forutsetningen. Hvis en håndfull selskaper
noe. Det kan hende du liker holdningene som denne *håndfullen* med
selskaper velger. Men du bør ikke like en verden der et lite mindretall får
bestemme hvilke saker resten av oss får høre om.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9477568"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8333248"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
Det er noe uskyldig og åpenbart i kravet fra opphavsrettskrigerne om at
myndighetene bør <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskytte eiendommen min.</span>»</span> Som abstrakt ide
er det åpenbart riktig, og vanligvis helt ufarlig. Ingen fornuftig person
har definert opphavsrettens regulering—en svekkelse av denne
reguleringen for å styrke kreativiteten.
</p><p>
-Åndsverksloven har ikke vært noen uforanderlig naturlov (*rock of
-Gibraltar*). Den er ikke et sett med konstante forpliktelser som tenåringer
-og geeks nå, av en eller annen mystisk grunn, gir blaffen i. I stedet har
-opphavsrettens makt vokst dramatisk på kort tid, etter hvert som teknologi
-for distribusjon og skaping har endret seg og etter hvert som lobbyister har
-presset på for mer kontroll hos opphavsrettsinnehaverne. Tidligere
-endringer som respons på endringene i teknologi foreslår at vi godt kan
-trenge lignende endringer i fremtiden. Og disse endringene må være
-<span class="emphasis"><em>reduksjon</em></span> i omfanget til opphavsretten, som svar på den
-ekstraordinære økningen i kontroll som teknologi og marked gjør mulig.
+Åndsverksloven har ikke vært noen uforanderlig naturlov. Den er ikke et sett
+med konstante forpliktelser som tenåringer og geeks nå, av en eller annen
+mystisk grunn, gir blaffen i. I stedet har opphavsrettens makt vokst
+dramatisk på kort tid, etter hvert som teknologi for distribusjon og skaping
+har endret seg og etter hvert som lobbyister har presset på for mer kontroll
+hos opphavsrettsinnehaverne. Tidligere endringer som respons på endringene
+i teknologi foreslår at vi godt kan trenge lignende endringer i fremtiden.
+Og disse endringene må være <span class="emphasis"><em>reduksjon</em></span> i omfanget til
+opphavsretten, som svar på den ekstraordinære økningen i kontroll som
+teknologi og marked gjør mulig.
</p><p>
For det enkeltpoenget som går tapt i denne krigen mot pirater er et poeng
kreative prosessen. Lovverk pluss teknologi pluss marked jobber nå sammen
for å gjøre denne historisk ubetydelige regulering til den mest
betydningsfulle reguleringen av kulturen som vårt frie samfunn har
-kjent.<a href="#ftn.idp9492224" class="footnote" name="idp9492224"><sup class="footnote">[150]</sup></a>
+kjent.<a href="#ftn.idp8347856" class="footnote" name="idp8347856"><sup class="footnote">[150]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Det har vært</strong></span> et langt kapittel. Dets
poeng kan nå formuleres ganske kort.
</p><p>
-I starten av denne boken, *skilte* jeg mellom kommersielle og
+I starten av denne boken, poengterte jeg forskjellen mellom kommersiell og
ikke-kommersiell kultur. I løpet av dette kapitelet har jeg skilt mellom
-kopiering av et verk, og omforming av det. Vi kan nå kombinere disse to
+kopiering av et verk, og å omforme det. Vi kan nå kombinere disse to
skillene og tegne et klart kart over endringene som opphavsrettsloven har
gjennomgått. I 1790, så loven slik ut:
</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t2"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Publisere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
eller ikke. Selvfølgelig er opphavsrett en type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom,</span>»</span> og
selvfølgelig, som med enhver eiendom, bør staten beskytte den. Men uansett
førsteinntrykk, så har denne eiendomretten, historisk sett (som med alle
-eiendomsretter<a href="#ftn.idp9537936" class="footnote" name="idp9537936"><sup class="footnote">[151]</sup></a>) vært utformet for å
+eiendomsretter<a href="#ftn.idp8393776" class="footnote" name="idp8393776"><sup class="footnote">[151]</sup></a>) vært utformet for å
balansere det viktige behovet å gi forfattere og artister incentiver med det
like viktige behovet å sikre tilgang til kreative verk. Denne balansen har
alltid blitt funnet i lys av nye teknologier. Og i nesten halve vår
hele tatt</em></span> friheten andre hadde til å bygge på og omforme et
kreativt verk. USAs kultur ble født fri, og for nesten 180 år beskyttet
vårt land konsistent en pulserende og rik fri kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9542944"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8398736"></a><p>
Vi oppnådde den frie kulturen på grunn av at vårt lovverk respekterte
viktige begrensninger i rekkevidden av interessene beskyttet av
opphavsretten utgjør har blitt ubalansert, med utslag mot et ytterpunkt.
Muligheten til å skape og omforme blir svekket i en verden der det å skape
krever tillatelse og kreativitet må sjekke med en advokat.
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8596112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8596112" class="para"><sup class="para">[116] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp7450880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7450880" class="para"><sup class="para">[116] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp8604720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8604720" class="para"><sup class="para">[117] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7459424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7459424" class="para"><sup class="para">[117] </sup></a>
Advokater snakker ikke om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> som en absolutt ting, men
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokatspråk,</span>»</span> se Bruce Ackerman,
<em class="citetitle">Private Property and the Constitution</em> (New Haven:
Yale University Press 1977), 26–27.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8677968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8677968" class="para"><sup class="para">[118] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7532400" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7532400" class="para"><sup class="para">[118] </sup></a>
Ved å beskrive hvordan loven påvirker de andre tre modalitetene, mener jeg
Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95;
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
of Legal Studies</em>, juni 1998.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8689168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8689168" class="para"><sup class="para">[119] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7543664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7543664" class="para"><sup class="para">[119] </sup></a>
Noen personer protesterer på denne måten å snakke om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frihet</span>»</span>
på. De protesterer fordi deres fokus når de vurderer begrensninger som
12101 (2000). Hver av disse inngrepene for å endre eksisterende vilkår
endrer friheten til en bestemt gruppe. Effekten av disse inngrepene bør tas
hensyn til for å forstå den effektive friheten som hver av disse gruppene
-møter. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8695696"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8696848"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8697632"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8698464"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8752272" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8752272" class="para"><sup class="para">[120] </sup></a>
+møter. <a class="indexterm" name="idp7550192"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7551344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7552128"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp7552960"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7606720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7606720" class="para"><sup class="para">[120] </sup></a>
Se Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
av Kodaks plass i markedet, se Chana R. Schoenberger, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make
Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6. oktober 2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #24</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8765952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8765952" class="para"><sup class="para">[121] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7620288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7620288" class="para"><sup class="para">[121] </sup></a>
Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
1994), 170–71.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8799088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8799088" class="para"><sup class="para">[122] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7653552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7653552" class="para"><sup class="para">[122] </sup></a>
Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8872496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8872496" class="para"><sup class="para">[123] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7726848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7726848" class="para"><sup class="para">[123] </sup></a>
William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
vol. 1, 485–86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
-(emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="idp8874368"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8885504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8885504" class="para"><sup class="para">[124] </sup></a>
+(emphasis added). <a class="indexterm" name="idp7728720"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7739744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7739744" class="para"><sup class="para">[124] </sup></a>
Selv om 13 000 titler ble publisert i USA fra 1790 til 1799, ble kun
verkene som ble opphavsrettsbeskyttet falt raskt i det fri, på grunn av at
vernetiden i opphavsretten var kort. Den opprinnelige vernetiden i
opphavsretten var fjorten år, med mulighet for forlengelse i ytterligere
-fjorten år. Copyright Act av 31. mai 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8894480" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8894480" class="para"><sup class="para">[125] </sup></a>
+fjorten år. Copyright Act av 31. mai 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp7748720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7748720" class="para"><sup class="para">[125] </sup></a>
Få opphavsrettsinnehavere valgte noensinne å fornye sine opphavsretter. For
Law Institute, 1963), 618. For en nyere og mer fullstendig analyse, se
William M. Landes og Richard A. Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable
Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
-70 (2003): 471, 498–501, og tilhørende figurer. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8902240" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8902240" class="para"><sup class="para">[126] </sup></a>
+70 (2003): 471, 498–501, og tilhørende figurer. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp7756384" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7756384" class="para"><sup class="para">[126] </sup></a>
-Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8930864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8930864" class="para"><sup class="para">[127] </sup></a>
+Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp7785104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7785104" class="para"><sup class="para">[127] </sup></a>
Disse statistikkene er undervurdert. Mellom årene 1910 og 1962 (det første
året fornyings-vernetiden ble utvidet), var gjennomsnittelig vernetid aldri
mer enn trettito år, og gjennomsnittet tretti år. Se Landes og Posner,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8973488" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8973488" class="para"><sup class="para">[128] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7827728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7827728" class="para"><sup class="para">[128] </sup></a>
Se Thomas Bender og David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the Creation
International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), og James Gilraeth,
ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790–1800 (U.S. G.P.O., 1987).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8993392" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8993392" class="para"><sup class="para">[129] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7847888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7847888" class="para"><sup class="para">[129] </sup></a>
Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Legal
-Affairs</em>, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8996128"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8998528" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8998528" class="para"><sup class="para">[130] </sup></a>
+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="idp7850624"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7853024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7853024" class="para"><sup class="para">[130] </sup></a>
Professor Rubenfeld har presentert en kraftfullt konstitusjonelt argument om
skillet som opphavsretten burde sette (fra perspektivet til det første
grunnlovstillegget) mellom kun <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> og avledede verk. Se
Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
-(2002): 1–60 (se spesielt sidene 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="idp9000592"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9016048" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9016048" class="para"><sup class="para">[131] </sup></a>
+(2002): 1–60 (se spesielt sidene 53–59). <a class="indexterm" name="idp7855088"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7870688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7870688" class="para"><sup class="para">[131] </sup></a>
Dette er en forenkling av loven, men ikke en særlig stor en. Loven
regulerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksemplarer</span>»</span> 17 <em class="citetitle">United States
Code</em>, del 102) er at hvis det er et eksemplar, så er det også en
rettighet knyttet til det.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9029904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9029904" class="para"><sup class="para">[132] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7884608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7884608" class="para"><sup class="para">[132] </sup></a>
Dermed er mitt argument at for hvert sted der opphavsrettsloven utvides så
bør vi avvise det. Det er i stedet at vi bør ha gode argumenter for dens
utvidelse når det gjøres, og bør ikke avgjøre rekkevidden bassert på
vilkårlige og automatiske endringer forårsaket av teknologi.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9017248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9017248" class="para"><sup class="para">[133] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp7871888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp7871888" class="para"><sup class="para">[133] </sup></a>
Jeg mener ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natur</span>»</span> i betydningen at det ikke kunne vært
Optiske nettverk trenger ikke lage kopier av innhold de distribuerer, og et
digitalt nettverk kan lages slik at det sletter alt det kopierer slik at det
forblir samme antall kopier.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9185152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9185152" class="para"><sup class="para">[134] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8040032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8040032" class="para"><sup class="para">[134] </sup></a>
Se David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Law
and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172–73.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9188208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9188208" class="para"><sup class="para">[135] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8043088" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8043088" class="para"><sup class="para">[135] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9188592"></a> Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan,
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8043472"></a> Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan,
<em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 1–3.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9229072" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9229072" class="para"><sup class="para">[136] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8084128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8084128" class="para"><sup class="para">[136] </sup></a>
I prinsippet kan en kontrakt pålegge meg et krav. Jeg kan for eksempel
fra kontrakten og ikke fra opphavsrettslovgiving, og forpliktelsene i
kontrakten ville ikke nødvendigvis videreføres til alle som senere kjøpte
boken.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9288032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9288032" class="para"><sup class="para">[137] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8143024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8143024" class="para"><sup class="para">[137] </sup></a>
Se Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
Science,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, april 2001; Electronic
Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
<em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
-Legal Case,</span>»</span> tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9294608"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9337456" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9337456" class="para"><sup class="para">[138] </sup></a>
+Legal Case,</span>»</span> tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8149664"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8192800" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8192800" class="para"><sup class="para">[138] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9337840"></a> <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8193184"></a> <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of
America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc.</em>,
464 U.S 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers endret aldri sitt syn om
videoopptakeren. Se James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast Forward: Hollywood, the
Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em> (New York: W. W. Norton,
-1987), 27071. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9340800"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9365440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9365440" class="para"><sup class="para">[139] </sup></a>
+1987), 27071. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8196144"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8220816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8220816" class="para"><sup class="para">[139] </sup></a>
For en tidlig og forutseende analyse, se Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
(1997): 651.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9384608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9384608" class="para"><sup class="para">[140] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8240000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8240000" class="para"><sup class="para">[140] </sup></a>
FCC-kontroll: Høring foran senatets komite for handel, vitenskap og
transport, 108. samling, 1 økt. (22. mai 2003) (uttalelse fra senator John
-McCain). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp9385984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9385984" class="para"><sup class="para">[141] </sup></a>
+McCain). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8241376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8241376" class="para"><sup class="para">[141] </sup></a>
Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23. desember 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9388160" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9388160" class="para"><sup class="para">[142] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8243552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8243552" class="para"><sup class="para">[142] </sup></a>
Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31. mai 2003.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9396448" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9396448" class="para"><sup class="para">[143] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8251888" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8251888" class="para"><sup class="para">[143] </sup></a>
James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
-Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9398544"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9410688" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9410688" class="para"><sup class="para">[144] </sup></a>
+Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8254192"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8266224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8266224" class="para"><sup class="para">[144] </sup></a>
Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> uttalelser ved Weidenbaum
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#28</a>; for Lear-historien som ikke er inkludert i den forberedte
uttalelsen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9417200" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9417200" class="para"><sup class="para">[145] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8272736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8272736" class="para"><sup class="para">[145] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp9419968" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9419968" class="para"><sup class="para">[146] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8275504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8275504" class="para"><sup class="para">[146] </sup></a>
ibid.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9426656" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9426656" class="para"><sup class="para">[147] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8282192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8282192" class="para"><sup class="para">[147] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with
Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#31</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9433792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9433792" class="para"><sup class="para">[148] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8289248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8289248" class="para"><sup class="para">[148] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp9459792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9459792" class="para"><sup class="para">[149] </sup></a>
+2001). </p></div><div id="ftn.idp8315424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8315424" class="para"><sup class="para">[149] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9460176"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9461280"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9462064"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9462896"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9463680"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9464496"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9465280"></a> Marihuana-politikkprosjektet forsøkte i februar 2003 å få plassert
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8315808"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8316912"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8317696"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8318528"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8319360"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8320176"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8320960"></a> Marihuana-politikkprosjektet forsøkte i februar 2003 å få plassert
reklamer som direkte svarte på Nick og Norm-serien på stasjoner i Washington
D.C-området. Comcast avviste reklamen som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mot [deres]
regler.</span>»</span> Den lokale NBC-fillialen, WRC, avviste reklamene uten å
After Muni Rejects Ad,</span>»</span> SFGate.com, 16. juni 2003, tilgjengelig fra
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. Begrunnelsen
var at kritikken var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for kontroversiell.</span>»</span>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9492224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9492224" class="para"><sup class="para">[150] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8347856" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8347856" class="para"><sup class="para">[150] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9493440"></a> Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8349072"></a> Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende
poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for åndsverksloven i den
digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159–60.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9537936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9537936" class="para"><sup class="para">[151] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8393776" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8393776" class="para"><sup class="para">[151] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9538320"></a> Det å demonstrere at alle
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8394160"></a> Det å demonstrere at alle
eiendomsrettigheter alltid har vært uformet for å balansere interessene til
fellesskapet og private var det viktigste enkeltbidra fra den juridiske
realist-bevegelsen. Se Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
</p></div></div></div></div><div class="part"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Del III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>I en velkjent</strong></span> novelle av H. G. Wells,
snublet en fjellklatrer ved navn Nunez ned en is-skråning inn i en ukjent og
-isolert dal i de Peruanske Andesfjellene.<a href="#ftn.idp9563232" class="footnote" name="idp9563232"><sup class="footnote">[152]</sup></a> Dalen er utrolig vakker, med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friskt vann, beiteland, et
+isolert dal i de Peruanske Andesfjellene.<a href="#ftn.idp8418928" class="footnote" name="idp8418928"><sup class="footnote">[152]</sup></a> Dalen er utrolig vakker, med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friskt vann, beiteland, et
jevnt klima og bakker med rik brun jord med virvar av buskas som bar en
velsmakende frukt.</span>»</span> Men landsbyboerne er alle blinde. Nunez ser
dette som en mulighet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I de blindes rike,</span>»</span> forteller han seg
forskjellig fra DNA-et i huden. Denne muligheten er en for lite brukt
handling i mordmysterier. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men DNA-et viser med 100 prosent sikkerhet
at hennes blod ikke er det som var på åstedet. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9583760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9585040"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8439376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8440656"></a><p>
Før jeg hadde lest om fantasifoster, så ville jeg ha sagt at det var
umulig. En enkelt person kan ikke ha to sett med DNA. Selve idéen med DNA
er at det er koden til et individ. Likevel er det jo faktisk slik at ikke
er det riktig, i hvert fall delvis. Hvis jeg, etter at Lyle Lovett
(endelig) gir ut et nytt album, i stedet for å kjøpe den går på Kazaa og
finner et gratis eksemplar jeg kan ta, så er det veldig likt det å stjele et
-eksemplar fra Tower.<a class="indexterm" name="idp9595584"></a>
+eksemplar fra Tower.<a class="indexterm" name="idp8451280"></a>
</p><p>
datamaskiner. Og vi kan få universiteter til å overvåke all datatrafikk for
å sikre at ingen datamaskin blir brukt til å gjennomføre denne
forbrytelsen. Disse svarene er kanskje ekstreme, men hver av dem har enten
-blitt foreslått eller er allerede gjennomført.<a href="#ftn.idp9599920" class="footnote" name="idp9599920"><sup class="footnote">[153]</sup></a>
+blitt foreslått eller er allerede gjennomført.<a href="#ftn.idp8455616" class="footnote" name="idp8455616"><sup class="footnote">[153]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9610928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8466624"></a><p>
Alternativt kan vi svare på fildeling slik mange unger oppfører seg som om
vi har svart. Vi kan legalisere det fullstendig. Fjern alt ansvar for
brudd på opphavsretten, både sivilt og strafferettslig, når en gjør
Likevel er nulltoleranse i stadig større grad våre myndigheters politikk.
-Midt i dette kaoset som Internett har skapt, finner en ekstraordinær *land
-grab* sted. Retten og teknologien endres til å gi innholdsinnehaverne en
-type kontroll over kulturen vår som de aldri har hatt før. Og i denne
-ekstremiteten vil mange muligheter for nye oppfinnelser og ny kreativitet gå
-tapt.
+Midt i dette kaoset som Internett har skapt, finner et ekstraordinær
+eiendomstyveri sted. Retten og teknologien endres til å gi
+innholdsinnehaverne en type kontroll over kulturen vår som de aldri har hatt
+før. Og i denne ekstremiteten vil mange muligheter for nye oppfinnelser og
+ny kreativitet gå tapt.
</p><p>
Jeg snakker ikke om muligheten for unger til å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjele</span>»</span>
musikk. Min fokus er i stedet på den kommersielle og kulturelle
som er tilgjengelig for forbrukere, både når det gjelder hvor enkelt de vil
være i stand til å få tilgang til digitale medier, og utstyret som de vil
kreve for å gjøre dette. Dårlige valg som gjøres tidlig i dette spillet vil
-hemme veksten i dette markedet og skade alles interesser.<a href="#ftn.idp9620976" class="footnote" name="idp9620976"><sup class="footnote">[154]</sup></a>
+hemme veksten i dette markedet og skade alles interesser.<a href="#ftn.idp8476736" class="footnote" name="idp8476736"><sup class="footnote">[154]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
I april 2001 ble eMusic.com kjøpt opp av Vivendi Universal, et av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
store plateselskapene.</span>»</span> Selskapets holdning rundt disse temaene har
-nå endret seg. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9623856"></a>
+nå endret seg. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8479616"></a>
</p><p>
Å nå reversere vår tolerante tradisjon vil ikke bare knuse piratvirksomhet.
Det vil ofre verdier som er viktige for denne kulturen, og det vil drepe
muligheter som kan være svært verdifulle.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9563232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9563232" class="para"><sup class="para">[152] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8418928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8418928" class="para"><sup class="para">[152] </sup></a>
H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9599920" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9599920" class="para"><sup class="para">[153] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8455616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8455616" class="para"><sup class="para">[153] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9600304"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8456000"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers
identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003,
D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9609040"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9609856"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9620976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9620976" class="para"><sup class="para">[154] </sup></a>
+#36</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8464736"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8465552"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8476736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8476736" class="para"><sup class="para">[154] </sup></a>
WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
at loven burde forsvare det gamle mot det nye, akkurat når makten til
eiendomsretten som kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span> er større en
den noen gang har vært i vår historie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9632560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9633376"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8488320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8489136"></a><p>
Likevel ser ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span> det slik. Sunn fornuft er
fortsatt enig med Causby-ene og innholdsindustrien. Det ekstreme krav om
kontroll som fremmes på vegne av eiendomsrett aksepteres
fortsatt. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> avvises fortsatt ukritisk.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9635840"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8491600"></a><p>
Det vil være mange konsekvenser ved å fortsette denne krigen. Jeg ønsker å
smale tema om vitenskap eller kultur. Det er store mengder kreative verk
spredt rundt om på Internett. Men slik loven er satt sammen i dag er disse
verkene antatt å være ulovlig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9646208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9646992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9648192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9649360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9650192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8501920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8502704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8503904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8505072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8505904"></a><p>
Denne antagelsen vil i stadig større grad kjøle ned kreativiteten, etter
hvert som eksemplene på ekstreme straffer for vage opphavsrettsbrudd
fortsetter å spre seg. Det er umulig å få en klar forståelse for hva som er
søkemotorer som tillot sanger å bli kopiert. Mens World-Com—som
svindlet investorer for 11 milliarder dollar, og førte til et tap hos
investorer i markedskapital på over 200 milliarder dollar—førte til en
-bot som kun var på 750 millioner dollar.<a href="#ftn.idp9653264" class="footnote" name="idp9653264"><sup class="footnote">[155]</sup></a> Og i henhold til lovgiving som fremmes i Kongressen akkurat nå, kan
+bot som kun var på 750 millioner dollar.<a href="#ftn.idp8508976" class="footnote" name="idp8508976"><sup class="footnote">[155]</sup></a> Og i henhold til lovgiving som fremmes i Kongressen akkurat nå, kan
en lege som skjødesløst fjerner feil fot i en operasjon ville risikere ikke
-mer enn 250 000 dollar i skadeerstatning for smerte og lidelse.<a href="#ftn.idp9657664" class="footnote" name="idp9657664"><sup class="footnote">[156]</sup></a> Kan sunn fornuft kjenne igjen det absurde i en
+mer enn 250 000 dollar i skadeerstatning for smerte og lidelse.<a href="#ftn.idp8513376" class="footnote" name="idp8513376"><sup class="footnote">[156]</sup></a> Kan sunn fornuft kjenne igjen det absurde i en
verden der den maksimale boten for å laste ned to sanger fra Internett er
høyere enn boten til en lege som skjødesløst slakter en pasient?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9662768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8518512"></a><p>
Konsekvensen av denne juridiske usikkerheten, sammen med disse ekstreme høye
straffene, er at en ekstraordinær mengde kreativitet aldri vil gjennomføres,
eller aldri vil gjennomføres åpnelyst. Vi tvinger denne kreative prosessen
se en verden av undergrunns-kunst—ikke fordi budskapet nødvendigvis er
politisk, eller fordi temaet er kontroversielt, men på grunn av at selve det
å skape denne kunsten er juridisk skummelt. Allerede har utstillinger med
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ulovlig kunst</span>»</span> vært på turné i USA.<a href="#ftn.idp9665184" class="footnote" name="idp9665184"><sup class="footnote">[157]</sup></a> Hva består deres <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ulovlighet</span>»</span> i? I
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ulovlig kunst</span>»</span> vært på turné i USA.<a href="#ftn.idp8520928" class="footnote" name="idp8520928"><sup class="footnote">[157]</sup></a> Hva består deres <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ulovlighet</span>»</span> i? I
det å mikse kulturen rundt oss med et uttrykk som er kritisk eller
ettertenksomt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9670880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8526624"></a><p>
En del av årsaken til denne frykten for ulovligheter har å gjøre med
endringer i lovverket. Jeg beskrev endringen i detalj i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. Men en enda større
del har å gjøre med hvordan det blir stadig enklere å spore opp
som om din kassettspiller sender en liste med sanger du har spilt i
privatsfæren i ditt eget hjem som enhver kan lytte på etter eget
forgodtbefinnende.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9674064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8529808"></a><p>
Aldri før i vår historie har en maler trengt å bekymre seg om hans maleri
krenker noen andres verk. Men en moderne maler, som bruker verktøyene til
Photoshop og deler innholdet på nettet, må bekymre seg for dette hele
regulering er bedre. Og begge perspektivene er konstant oppmerksom på
hvordan regulering ganske enkelt gjør det mulig for dagens mektige
industrier å beskytte seg selv mot morgendagens konkurrenter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9700368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9702848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9703664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8555984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8558528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8559344"></a><p>
Dette er den ene mest dramatiske effekten fra skiftet i regulatorisk
strategi som jeg beskrev i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. Konsekvensen av denne massive trusselen om
Leksen—som tidligere Napster-CEO Hank Barry kaller en
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjernefysisk skygge</span>»</span> som har spredt seg over Silicon
Vally—har blitt lært.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9707360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9708112"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8563040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8563792"></a><p>
Her er et eksempel for å demonstrere dette poenget, en historie jeg fortalte
starten av i <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> og som har utviklet
seg på en måte som selv ikke jeg (en ekstraordinær pessimist) kunne ha
spådd.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9713264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmpcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmympcom"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8568832"></a><p>
I 1997 etablerte Michael Roberts et selskap ved navn MP3.com. MP3.com var
ute etter å endre musikkbransjen. Målet deres var ikke bare å bidra til nye
måter å få tilgang til innhold. Målet var også å bidra til nye måter å
skape innhold. Til forskjell fra de store plateselskapene tilbød MP3.com
opphavspersonene en arena for å distribuere sin kreativitet, uten å kreve et
eksklusivt engasjement fra opphavspersonene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9715248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8570816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
Men for å få dette systemet til å virke, trengte MP3.com en pålitelig måte å
anbefale musikk til sine brukere. Idéen bak dette alternativet var å
utnytte musikklytternes eksponerte musikkvalg for å anbefale nye artister.
Målet med my.mp3.com-tjenesten var å gi brukere tilgang til sitt eget
innhold, og som et biprodukt av å se hva slags innhold brukerne allerede
eide, oppdage hva slags innhold brukerne likte.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9722128"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8577696"></a><p>
Men for å få dette systemet til å fungere, måtte MP3.com kopiere 50 000
CD-er til en tjener. (I prinsippet kunne det vært brukerne som lastet opp
musikken, men det ville tatt svært mye tid, og det ville gjort at produktet
bekrefte at de allerede hadde et eksemplar av CD-en de ønsket tilgang til.
Så selv om dette var 50 000 kopier, så var det 50 000 kopier som
ble tilbudt for å gi kunder noe de allerede hadde kjøpt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9726560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9727776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9731024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9732176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9733296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8582128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8583344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitsinrecordingindustry3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8586544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8587696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8588816"></a><p>
Ni dager etter at MP3.com lanserte sin tjeneste anla de fem store
plateselskapene, under ledelse av RIAA, sak mot MP3.com. MP3.com inngikk
forlik med fire av de fem. Ni måneder senere avgjorde en føderal dommer at
vært åpenbart at domstolene ville anse denne oppførselen for ulovlig.
Dermed forsøkte dette søksmålet å straffe enhver advokat som våget å foreslå
at loven var mindre restriktiv en plateselskapene krevde.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9737328"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8592848"></a><p>
Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
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="idp
9740000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9741280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9742592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9744032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9744848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9749056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9749840"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9750656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9751472"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9752288"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9753104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9755712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9756528"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8595520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8596736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8598048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8599488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8600304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbmw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcarsmpsoundsystemsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8604448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8605232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8606048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8606864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8607680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8608496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxneedlemanrafe"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8611104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8611920"></a><p>
Denne strategien er ikke begrenset kun til advokater. I april 2003 leverte
Universal og EMI inn et søksmål mot Hummer Winblad, venturekapitalfirmaet
(VC) som hadde finansiert Napster på et bestemt steg i dets utvikling, dets
-medstifter (John Hummer) og dets generelle partner (Hank Berry).<a href="#ftn.idp9758208" class="footnote" name="idp9758208"><sup class="footnote">[158]</sup></a> Påstanden her var også VC-en burde ha forstått at
+medstifter (John Hummer) og dets generelle partner (Hank Berry).<a href="#ftn.idp8613600" class="footnote" name="idp8613600"><sup class="footnote">[158]</sup></a> Påstanden her var også VC-en burde ha forstått at
innholdsindustrien hadde rett til å kontrollere hvordan industrien burde
utvikle seg. De burde holdes personlig ansvarlig for å ha finansiert et
selskap hvis forretningsmodell viste seg å være utenfor loven. Igjen er
MP3-er via bilens innebyggede musikkanlegg, men at selskapets avdelinger for
markedføring og juss ikke var komfortable med å lansere dette over hele
landet. Selv i dag er det ingen nye biler solgt i USA med en fungerende
-MP3-spiller. … <a href="#ftn.idp9686176" class="footnote" name="idp9686176"><sup class="footnote">[159]</sup></a>
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9768928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9770240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9771552"></a><p>
+MP3-spiller. … <a href="#ftn.idp8541952" class="footnote" name="idp8541952"><sup class="footnote">[159]</sup></a>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8624320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8625632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8626944"></a><p>
Dette er verden til mafiaen—fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
nyskapning. Hvis nyskapning stadig kontrolleres av dette usikre og
ubegrensede erstatningsansvaret, så vil vi ha mye mindre levende nyskapning
og mye mindre kreativitet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9777312"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8632640"></a><p>
Poenget er en direkte parallell til det knasende venstrevridde poenget om
rimelig bruk. Uansett hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reell</span>»</span> loven er, så er realisme om
effekten av lovverket i begge sammenhengen tilsvarende. Dette vilt
mindre effektivt. Hvis Internett gjør det mulig å drive med
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet,</span>»</span> så sier denne responsen at vi bør knekke
kneskålene på Internett.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9787072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8642400"></a><p>
Det er mange eksempler på denne typen lovgiving. På oppfordring fra
innholdsindustrien har noen i Kongressen truet med lovgiving som ville kreve
at datamaskiner skulle avgjøre om innhold de hadde tilgang til var beskyttet
-eller ikke, og slå av muligheten for å spre beskyttet innhold.<a href="#ftn.idp9788736" class="footnote" name="idp9788736"><sup class="footnote">[160]</sup></a> Kongressen har allerede lansert forslag om å
+eller ikke, og slå av muligheten for å spre beskyttet innhold.<a href="#ftn.idp8644064" class="footnote" name="idp8644064"><sup class="footnote">[160]</sup></a> Kongressen har allerede lansert forslag om å
utforske et påkrevd <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kringkastings-flagg</span>»</span> som ville være
påkrevd på enhver enhet som kan sende digital video (med andre ord, en
datamaskin), og som ville hindre kopiering av ethvert innhold som er merket
med kringkastingsflagget. Andre medlemmer av Kongressen har foreslått
immunitet til innholdsleverandører fra erstatning for teknologi som de kan
ta i bruk for å spore opp de som bryter opphavsrettsen og koble ut
-datamaskinene deres.<a href="#ftn.idp9792016" class="footnote" name="idp9792016"><sup class="footnote">[161]</sup></a>
+datamaskinene deres.<a href="#ftn.idp8647344" class="footnote" name="idp8647344"><sup class="footnote">[161]</sup></a>
</p><p>
På en måte virker disse løsningene fornuftige. Hvis problemet er koden,
teknologi. Den vil påføre teknologien betydelig byrder og kostnader, men
vil mest sannsynlig omgått av fremskritt når det gjelder akkurat disse
kravene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9794368"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8649696"></a><p>
I mars 2002 forsøkte en bred koalisjon av teknologibedrifter, ledet av
Intel, å få Kongressen til å se skaden slik lovgiving ville føre
-til.<a href="#ftn.idp9795712" class="footnote" name="idp9795712"><sup class="footnote">[162]</sup></a> Argumentet deres var selvsagt ikke
+til.<a href="#ftn.idp8651040" class="footnote" name="idp8651040"><sup class="footnote">[162]</sup></a> Argumentet deres var selvsagt ikke
at opphavsrett ikke skulle bli beskyttet. Istedet argumenterte de med at en
beskyttelse ikke måtte gjøre mer skade enn gavn.
</p><p>
andre. Når det gjøres riktig, gir det fordeler til skapere og skader til
snyltere. Når det er gjort galt, er det regulering som de mektige bruker
til å beseire konkurrenter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9800176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9801248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9802064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9802880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8655504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8656576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8657392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8658208"></a><p>
Som jeg beskrev i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, og på tross av denne egenskapen av opphavsrett som
regulering, og når en tar hensyn til viktige kvalifiseringer skissert av
Jessica Litman i hennes bok <em class="citetitle">Digital
-Copyright</em>,<a href="#ftn.idp9805904" class="footnote" name="idp9805904"><sup class="footnote">[163]</sup></a>, så er i det
+Copyright</em>,<a href="#ftn.idp8661232" class="footnote" name="idp8661232"><sup class="footnote">[163]</sup></a>, så er i det
store og hele historien til opphavsretten ikke ille. Når nye teknologier
dukker opp, slik kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a> forteller mer om, har Kongressen funnet en balanse
for å sikre at det nye er beskyttet fra det gamle. Tvangslisenser eller
både domstolene og Kongressen innført juridiske restriksjoner som vil ha
effekten at de kveler det nye til fordel for det gamle.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetradioon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiooninternet"></a><p>
-Tilbakemeldingene fra domstolene har omtrent det samme.<a href="#ftn.idp9815584" class="footnote" name="idp9815584"><sup class="footnote">[164]</sup></a> Det har vært speilet i responsen som Kongressen har
+Tilbakemeldingene fra domstolene har omtrent det samme.<a href="#ftn.idp8670976" class="footnote" name="idp8670976"><sup class="footnote">[164]</sup></a> Det har vært speilet i responsen som Kongressen har
truet med og implementert. Jeg vil ikke liste opp alle tilbakemeldingene
-her.<a href="#ftn.idp9820640" class="footnote" name="idp9820640"><sup class="footnote">[165]</sup></a> Men det er et eksempel som
+her.<a href="#ftn.idp8676032" class="footnote" name="idp8676032"><sup class="footnote">[165]</sup></a> Men det er et eksempel som
inneholder essensen av dem alle. Dette er historien om utryddelsen av
Internettradio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9828176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9829264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8683568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8684656"></a><p>
til et relativt stort antall brukere over hele verden. I følge noen
estimater har mer enn åtti millioner brukere over hele verden koblet seg opp
til denne nye formen for radio.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9838400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8693792"></a><p>
Dette tyranniet ble knust først etter at det ble mulig for folk å fritt
skaffe seg trykkepresser og fritt bruke dem. FM var på denne måten en like
fantastisk oppfinnelse som trykkepressene, da det ga radio muligheten til å
-kaste lenkene sine.<a href="#ftn.idp9765552" class="footnote" name="idp9765552"><sup class="footnote">[166]</sup></a>
+kaste lenkene sine.<a href="#ftn.idp8620944" class="footnote" name="idp8620944"><sup class="footnote">[166]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Dette potensialet for FM-radio ble aldri realisert—ikke på grunn av at
-Armstrong tok feil av teknologien, men fordi han undervurderte *evnen til
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">*vested interests*, vaner, skikker og lovgiving</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9844736" class="footnote" name="idp9844736"><sup class="footnote">[167]</sup></a> å hemme veksten av denne konkurrerende
-teknologien*.
+Armstrong tok feil av teknologien, men fordi han undervurderte kraften til
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egeninteresser, vaner, skikker og lovgiving</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8700128" class="footnote" name="idp8700128"><sup class="footnote">[167]</sup></a> i å hemme veksten av denne konkurrerende
+teknologien.
</p><p>
Akkurat den samme påstanden kan nå fremmes om Internettradio. Og også denne
gangen er det ingen tekniske begrensninger som kan begrense antallet
blir pålagt av lovverket. Opphavsrettsloven er en slik lov. Så det første
spørsmålet vi bør stille er, hvilke opphavsrettsregler bør styre
Internettradio?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9848592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9849712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9850816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8704096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8705216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8706320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryradiobroadcastand2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryinternetradiohamperedby"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaalobbyingpowerof"></a><p>
Men her er makten til lobbyistene motsatt. Internettradio er en ny
industri. Plateartistene derimot har en svært mektig lobby, RIAA. Dermed
Fisher ved Harvard estimerte, hvis en Internet-radiostasjon distribuerte
reklamefri populærmusikk til (i gjennomsnitt) ti tusen lyttere, tjuefire
timer i døgnet, så ville de totale utbetalingene til artister som denne
-radiostasjonen ville skylde være over en million dollar i året.<a href="#ftn.idp9865264" class="footnote" name="idp9865264"><sup class="footnote">[168]</sup></a> En radiostasjon som kringkaster det samme innholdet
+radiostasjonen ville skylde være over en million dollar i året.<a href="#ftn.idp8720864" class="footnote" name="idp8720864"><sup class="footnote">[168]</sup></a> En radiostasjon som kringkaster det samme innholdet
ville ikke måtte betale et tilsvarende beløp.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9870928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9872256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9873584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9874912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9876352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8726528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8727920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8729312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8730640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8732016"></a><p>
Byrden er ikke kun økonomisk. I følge det opprinnelige forslag til regler,
måtte en Internettradiostasjon (men ikke en bakkebasert radiostasjon) samle
inn følgende informasjon for <span class="emphasis"><em>hver eneste
unik bruker-identifikator;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9895088"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8750752"></a><p>
Kongressbibliotekaren stoppet til slutt disse rapporteringskravene, i
påvente av flere undersøkelser. Han endret også de opprinnelige prisene
satt av voldgiftspanelet som fikk oppgaven med å fastsette prisene. Men den
noen studier av de økonomiske konsekvensene for Internet-radio som kan
forsvare disse forskjellene? Var motivet å beskytte kunstnere mot
piratvirksomhet?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9898304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8753968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryassociationofamericariaaoninternetradiofees2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsrecordingindustrypaymentsto4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrecordingindustryartistremunerationin4"></a><p>
I et sjeldent oppriktig øyeblikk, innrømmet en RIAA-ekspert det som virket
åpenbart for alle på den tiden. Dette fortalte Alex Alben, visepresident
-for *Public Policy* ved Real Networks, meg,
+med ansvar for offentlig politikk ved Real Networks, meg,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
RIAA, som representerte plateselskapene, presenterte noen vitnesbyrder om
Fordi her har vi hundretusenvis av webcastere som ønsker å betale, og det
ville etablere markedsraten, og hvis du setter den raten så høyt vil du
tvinge de små webcasterne til å måtte gi opp. …</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9909536"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8765232"></a><p>
Og RIAA-eksperten svarte, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, vår modell er ikke for en industri med
tusenvis av webcastere. <span class="emphasis"><em>Vi tror det bør bli en industri med, du
vet, fem eller syv store aktører som kan betale en høy avgift og slik få et
stabilt og forutsigbart marked.</em></span></span>»</span> (min utheving.)
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9912176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9913360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9914784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9916176"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8767872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8769120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8770544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8771936"></a><p>
Oversettelse: Målet er å bruke loven til å fjerne konkurranse, slik at denne
platformen som potensielt muliggjør massiv konkurranse og dermed fører til
en eksplosjon i mangfold og omfang av tilgjengelig innhold, ikke forårsaker
venstresiden, burde bifalle denne bruken av loven. Og likevel er det
praktisk talt ingen, hverken på høyre- eller venstresiden, som har gjort noe
effektivt for å hindre det.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9918608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9919936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9921328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9922704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9923952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9925264"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Skader borgere</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8774304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8775632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8776960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8778336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8779584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8780832"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Skader borgere</h2></div></div></div><p>
For mye regulering knebler kreativiteten. Den kveler nyskapning. Den gir
dinosaurer vetorett over fremtiden. Den kaster bort den ekstraordinære
muligheten for en demokratisk kreativitet som digital teknologi gjør mulig.
Krigen som føres i dag er en forbudskrig. Og som enhver forbudskrig, er den
rettet mot oppførselen til et veldig stort antall borgere. I følge
<em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, lastet 43 millioner amerikanere
-ned musikk i mai 2002.<a href="#ftn.idp9930848" class="footnote" name="idp9930848"><sup class="footnote">[169]</sup></a> I følge RIAA
+ned musikk i mai 2002.<a href="#ftn.idp8786416" class="footnote" name="idp8786416"><sup class="footnote">[169]</sup></a> I følge RIAA
gjør oppførselen til disse 43 millionene amerikanere dem til forbrytere. Vi
har dermed et sett med regler som gjør 20 prosent av USA til kriminelle.
Mens RIAA saksøker ikke bare Napsterne og Kazaaene i verden, men studenter
søksmålet. Den samme strategien driver RIAAs søksmål mot individuelle
brukere. I september 2003 saksøkte RIAA 261 individer—inkludert en
tolv år gammel jente som bodde i en kommunal leilighet og en sytti år gammel
-dame som ikke hadde noe ide om hva fildeling var.<a href="#ftn.idp9863936" class="footnote" name="idp9863936"><sup class="footnote">[170]</sup></a> Som disse offerlammene oppdaget, vil det alltid
+dame som ikke hadde noe ide om hva fildeling var.<a href="#ftn.idp8719536" class="footnote" name="idp8719536"><sup class="footnote">[170]</sup></a> Som disse offerlammene oppdaget, vil det alltid
koste mer å forsvare seg mot disse søksmålene enn det vil koste å ganske
enkelt inngå forlik. (Tolvåringen, for eksempel, betalte på samme måte som
Jesse Jordan sine 2 000 dollar i sparepenger for å inngå forlik.) Vårt
Det setter vår tradisjon i forlegenhet. Og konsekvensen er at vårt
rettssystem gjør det mulig for de med makt å utnytte domstolene til å knuse
enhver rettighet de er i mot.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9937648"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8793216"></a><p>
Forbudskriger er ikke noe nytt i USA. Denne er bare noe mer ekstrem enn
noen annet vi har sett tidligere. Vi eksperimenterte med alkoholforbud, i
en periode da alkoholkonsum pr. person var 5.7 literpr. person pr. år.
nivået før forbudet ble innført, men på slutten av forbudstiden var
forbruket kommet opp til 70 prosent av opprinnelig nivå. Amerikanere drakk
akkurat like mye som før, men nå var en stor andel av dem
-kriminelle.<a href="#ftn.idp9941056" class="footnote" name="idp9941056"><sup class="footnote">[171]</sup></a> Vi har satt igang en krig
+kriminelle.<a href="#ftn.idp8796624" class="footnote" name="idp8796624"><sup class="footnote">[171]</sup></a> Vi har satt igang en krig
mot narkotika med mål om å redusere forbruket av kontrollerte rusmidler som
-7 prosent (eller 16 millioner) Amerikanere nå bruker.<a href="#ftn.idp9943152" class="footnote" name="idp9943152"><sup class="footnote">[172]</sup></a> dette er en reduksjon fra toppen i 1979 med 14
+7 prosent (eller 16 millioner) Amerikanere nå bruker.<a href="#ftn.idp8798720" class="footnote" name="idp8798720"><sup class="footnote">[172]</sup></a> dette er en reduksjon fra toppen i 1979 med 14
prosent av befolkningen. Vi regulerer biler til et nivå der det store
flertall av amerikanere bryter loven hver dag. Vi har et så komplekst
skattesystem at flertallet av kontantbaserte bedrifter jukser
-regelmessig.<a href="#ftn.idp9945264" class="footnote" name="idp9945264"><sup class="footnote">[173]</sup></a> Vi er stolte over å leve i
+regelmessig.<a href="#ftn.idp8800832" class="footnote" name="idp8800832"><sup class="footnote">[173]</sup></a> Vi er stolte over å leve i
et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt samfunn,</span>»</span> men en endeløs rekke av vanlige oppførsler
er regulert i vårt samfunn. Som et resultat bryter en stor andel av
amerikanere regelmessig en eller annen lov.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9948048"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8803616"></a><p>
Denne situasjonen er ikke helt uten konsekvenser. Det er et spesielt
fremtredende tema for lærere som meg, som har som jobb å lære juss-studenter
om viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">etikk.</span>»</span> Som min kollega Charlie Nesson
at denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friheten</span>»</span> var en rettighet: I en serie reklamefilmer
gikk Apple god for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ripp, miks, brenn</span>»</span>-mulighetene til
digitale teknologier.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9965136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8820704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bruken</span>»</span> av mine plater er helt klart verdifull. Jeg har
begynt en stor prosess hjemme for å rippe alle mine og min kones CD-er, og
lagrer dem i et arkiv. Dermed kan vi, vet hjelp av iTunes fra Apple eller
tvinge oss alle tilbake til en verden der vi enten hører på musikk ved å
fikle med plastbiter eller er del av et svært komplekst <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digitalt
rettighetsstyringssystem.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9973072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8828592"></a><p>
Hvis den eneste måten å sikre at kunstnere fikk betalt var å fjerne all
mulighet til å fritt flytte innhold, så ville disse teknologier som griper
inn i friheten til å flytte innhold kunne forsvares. Men hva hvis det
hvorfor vi som demokrati fortsetter å velge som vi gjør. Jack Valenti er
sjarmerende, men ikke så sjarmerende at det rettferdiggjør å gi slipp på en
tradisjon så dyp og viktig som vår tradisjon for fri kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9980384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8835904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Det er et annet</strong></span> aspekt ved denne skaden
som er spesielt viktig for borgerrettigheter, og som følger direkte fra
enhver forbudskrig. Som advokat Fred von Lohmann i Elektronisk
skaden</span>»</span> som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">oppstår hver gang en gjør en stor andel av
befolkningen til kriminelle.</span>»</span> Dette er den utilsiktede skaden til
borgerrettighetene generelt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9985376"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8840880"></a><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter,</span>»</span> forklarer
von Lohmann,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
datamaskin blir brukt til å laste ned musikk tilsvarende en enkelt CD, sa
kan familien risikere å måtte betale 2 millioner dollar i erstatning. Dette
stoppet ikke RIAA fra å saksøke et antall av disse familiene, på samme måte
-som de hadde saksøkt Jesse Jordan.<a href="#ftn.idp9992608" class="footnote" name="idp9992608"><sup class="footnote">[174]</sup></a>
+som de hadde saksøkt Jesse Jordan.<a href="#ftn.idp8848112" class="footnote" name="idp8848112"><sup class="footnote">[174]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Selv dette undervurderer spioneringen som blir gjennomført av RIAA. I en
rapport fra CNN sent sist sommer beskriver en strategi som RIAA har adoptert
-for å spore Napster-brukere.<a href="#ftn.idp9999232" class="footnote" name="idp9999232"><sup class="footnote">[175]</sup></a> Ved å
+for å spore Napster-brukere.<a href="#ftn.idp8854736" class="footnote" name="idp8854736"><sup class="footnote">[175]</sup></a> Ved å
bruke en sofistikert hashings-algoritme tok RIAA det som effektivt sett er
et fingeravtrykk av hver eneste sang i Napster-katalogen. Enhver kopi av
disse MP3-ene vil ha samme <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
ikke har beskyttet sitt innhold på riktig vis (vet du selv hvordan du gjør
dette?), så vil RIAA kunne identifisere din datter som en
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kriminell.</span>»</span> Og i henhold til de reglene som universiteter er
-i gang med å rulle ut,<a href="#ftn.idp10004816" class="footnote" name="idp10004816"><sup class="footnote">[176]</sup></a> så kan din
+i gang med å rulle ut,<a href="#ftn.idp8860320" class="footnote" name="idp8860320"><sup class="footnote">[176]</sup></a> så kan din
datter miste retten til å bruke universitetets datanettverk. Hun kan i noen
tilfeller bli utvist.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10013168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10014480"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8868672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8869984"></a><p>
Nå har hun selvfølgelig rett til å forsvare seg selv. Du kan leie inn en
advokat til henne (til 300 dollar per time, hvis du er heldig), og hun kan
anses å være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kriminelle,</span>»</span> hvem er det da som er skurken?
Amerikanerne eller loven? Hva er amerikansk, en konstant krig mot vårt eget
folk, eller en felles innsats i demokratiet vårt for å endre loven vår?
-</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9653264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9653264" class="para"><sup class="para">[155] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8508976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8508976" class="para"><sup class="para">[155] </sup></a>
Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9656000"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9657664" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9657664" class="para"><sup class="para">[156] </sup></a>
- Lovforslaget, som var modellerert etter Califorias *tort reform*-modell, ble
-vedtatt i Representantenes hus men stoppet i Senatet i juli 2003. For en
-oversikt, se Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,'
-Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra
-<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, og
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9. juli
-2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
-#39</a>. President Bush har fortsatt å argumentere for *tort reform* de
-siste månedene. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9661008"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9665184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9665184" class="para"><sup class="para">[157] </sup></a>
+#37</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8511712"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8513376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8513376" class="para"><sup class="para">[156] </sup></a>
+ Lovforslaget, som var modellerert etter Califorias
+erstatningsrettreform-modell, ble vedtatt i Representantenes hus men stoppet
+i Senatet i juli 2003. For en oversikt, se Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure
+Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com,
+28. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns
+Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra
+<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #39</a>. President Bush
+har fortsatt å argumentere for erstatningsrettreform de siste
+månedene. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8516752"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8520928" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8520928" class="para"><sup class="para">[157] </sup></a>
<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 id="ftn.idp9758208" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9758208" class="para"><sup class="para">[158] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8613600" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8613600" class="para"><sup class="para">[158] </sup></a>
Se Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span>
1. juni 2001, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>. Se også Jon Healey,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
Times</em>, 28. mai 2001.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9686176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9686176" class="para"><sup class="para">[159] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8541952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8541952" class="para"><sup class="para">[159] </sup></a>
Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. Jeg er takknemlig til
-Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9767440"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9788736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9788736" class="para"><sup class="para">[160] </sup></a>
+Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for dette eksemplet. <a class="indexterm" name="idp8622832"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8644064" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8644064" class="para"><sup class="para">[160] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span>
GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
School (2003), 33–35, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9792016" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9792016" class="para"><sup class="para">[161] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8647344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8647344" class="para"><sup class="para">[161] </sup></a>
GartnerG2, 26–27.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9795712" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9795712" class="para"><sup class="para">[162] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8651040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8651040" class="para"><sup class="para">[162] </sup></a>
Se David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span>
Newsbytes, februar 2002 (Entertainment).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9805904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9805904" class="para"><sup class="para">[163] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8661232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8661232" class="para"><sup class="para">[163] </sup></a>
Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
-Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="idp9806800"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9807952"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9815584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9815584" class="para"><sup class="para">[164] </sup></a>
+Prometheus Books, 2001). <a class="indexterm" name="idp8662128"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8663280"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8670976" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8670976" class="para"><sup class="para">[164] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9815968"></a> Det eneste ankekretsunntaket finnes i
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8671360"></a> Det eneste ankekretsunntaket finnes i
<em class="citetitle">Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA (RIAA)</em> mot
<em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th
Cir. 1999). Der konkluderte den niende ankekrets med at de som lagde
<em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal.,
2003), der domstolen fant at koblingen mellom distributør og en hvilken som
helst gitt bruker for svakt til å gjøre distributør ansvarlig for
-medvirkende eller *vicarious* erstatning for opphavsrettsbrudd.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9820640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9820640" class="para"><sup class="para">[165] </sup></a>
+medvirkende eller vikarierende erstatning for opphavsrettsbrudd.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8676032" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8676032" class="para"><sup class="para">[165] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9821024"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9822128"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9822944"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9823760"></a> I juli 2002 introduserte for eksempel representant
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8676416"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8677520"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8678336"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8679152"></a> I juli 2002 introduserte for eksempel representant
Howard Berman *Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act* (H.R. 5211) som ville
frita opphavsrettsinnehavere fra erstatningsansvar for skade gjort på
datamaskiner når opphavsrettsinnehaverne brukte teknologi til å stoppe
krevde opphavsrettsbeskyttelsesteknologi i alle digitale medie-enheter. Se
GartnerG2, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
World,</span>»</span> 27. juni 2003, 33–34, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9765552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9765552" class="para"><sup class="para">[166] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8620944" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8620944" class="para"><sup class="para">[166] </sup></a>
Lessing, 239.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9844736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9844736" class="para"><sup class="para">[167] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8700128" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8700128" class="para"><sup class="para">[167] </sup></a>
Ibid., 229.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9865264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9865264" class="para"><sup class="para">[168] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8720864" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8720864" class="para"><sup class="para">[168] </sup></a>
This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
-media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9868560"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp9869664"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9930848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9930848" class="para"><sup class="para">[169] </sup></a>
+media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8724160"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8725264"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8786416" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8786416" class="para"><sup class="para">[169] </sup></a>
Mike Graziano og Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
Pew Internet and American Life Project (24. april 2001), tilgjengelig fra
<a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #46</a>. The Pew
Internet and American Life Project rapporterte at 37 millioner Amerikanere
hadde lastet ned musikkfiler fra Internet før starten av 2001.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9863936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9863936" class="para"><sup class="para">[170] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8719536" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8719536" class="para"><sup class="para">[170] </sup></a>
Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10. september 2003,
Business.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9941056" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9941056" class="para"><sup class="para">[171] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8796624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8796624" class="para"><sup class="para">[171] </sup></a>
Jeffrey A. Miron og Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
no. 2 (1991): 242.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9943152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9943152" class="para"><sup class="para">[172] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8798720" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8798720" class="para"><sup class="para">[172] </sup></a>
Nasjonal narkotikakontrollpolitikk: Høring foran Kongressens komite for
myndighetsreform, 108. Kongress, 1. sesjon. (5. mars 2003) (uttalelse fra
John P. Walters, direktør for Nasjonal narkotikakontrollpolitikk).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9945264" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9945264" class="para"><sup class="para">[173] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8800832" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8800832" class="para"><sup class="para">[173] </sup></a>
Se James Andreoni, Brian Erard, og Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
(1998): 818 (oversikt over litteratur om bruk i henhold til lovverket).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9992608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9992608" class="para"><sup class="para">[174] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8848112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8848112" class="para"><sup class="para">[174] </sup></a>
See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9999232" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9999232" class="para"><sup class="para">[175] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8854736" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8854736" class="para"><sup class="para">[175] </sup></a>
Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
Age,</span>»</span> tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10004816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10004816" class="para"><sup class="para">[176] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8860320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8860320" class="para"><sup class="para">[176] </sup></a>
See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
opphavet til en hobby, og hobbyen hans ga opphav til et kall: Eldred ville
lage et bibliotek over verk i det fri ved å skanne disse og gjøre dem gratis
tilgjengelig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10045888"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8901472"></a><p>
Biblioteket til Eldred var ikke bare en kopi av visse verk i det fri, selv
om en kopi ville vært av stor verdi for folk rundt om i verden som ikke kan
gjorde Grimm om til historier som var mer tilgjengelige i det tjuende
århundret, gjorde Eldred om på Hawthorne og mange andre til noe mer
tilgjengelig—teknisk tilgjengelig—i dag.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10047808"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8903392"></a><p>
Eldreds frihet til å gjøre dette med Hawthornes verk kom fra samme kilde som
Disneys. Hawthornes <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> hadde falt i det
fri i 1907. Alle hadde frihet til å ta det uten tillatelse fra *boet* etter
(<em class="citetitle">Askepott</em>) og noen ganger uten (<em class="citetitle">Ringeren i
Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure Planet</em>). Alle disse
er kommersielle publiseringer av verk i det fri.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10051856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10053168"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8907440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8908752"></a><p>
Internett skapte muligheten for ikke-kommersiell publisering av verk i det
fri. Eldreds publisering er bare ett eksempel. Det finnes bokstavelig talt
tusenvis andre. Hundretusenvis rundt om i verden har oppdaget denne
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke-kommersielle forlagsindustrien,</span>»</span> hvilket før Internett
var begrenset til folk med store ego eller med politiske eller sosiale
kall. Men med Internett inkluderer det en lang rekke med individer og
-grupper som er dedikert til å spre kultur generelt.<a href="#ftn.idp10056288" class="footnote" name="idp10056288"><sup class="footnote">[177]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10064864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10065680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10066496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
+grupper som er dedikert til å spre kultur generelt.<a href="#ftn.idp8911936" class="footnote" name="idp8911936"><sup class="footnote">[177]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressuscopyrighttermsextendedby2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof6"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawtermextensionsin2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8920560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8921376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8922192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsfuturepatentsvsfuturecopyrightsin"></a><p>
Som jeg sa, bor Eldred i New Hapshire. I 1998 skulle diktsamlingen
<em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> av Robert Frost falle i det fri. Eldred
ønsket å publisere denne samlingen i sitt fritt og offentlig tilgjengelige
et eneste opphavsrettsbeskyttet verk falle i det fri før det året (og ikke
en gang da, hvis kongressen utvidet vernetiden igjen). Som kontrast ville
mer enn en million patenter falle i det fri i samme periode.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10072784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10073968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10075296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10076112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8928480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8929664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8931056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8931872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinperpetuity4"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonnybonocopyrighttermextensionactctea2"></a><p>
Dette var Sonny Bono utvidelse av opphavsrettsvernetid-loven (CTEA), lagt
frem til minne om kongressrepresentant og tidligere musiker Sonny Bony, som
i følge hans enke Mari Bony mente at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten bør vare
-evig.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp10081440" class="footnote" name="idp10081440"><sup class="footnote">[178]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10085344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10086784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10087904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10088688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10089536"></a><p>
+evig.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8937248" class="footnote" name="idp8937248"><sup class="footnote">[178]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8941152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8942592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8943712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8944496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8945344"></a><p>
Eldred bestemte seg for å sloss mot denne loven. Han valgte først å
bekjempe den gjennom sivil ulydighet. I en serie intervjuer annonserte
Eldred at han kom til å publisere som planlagt, på tross av CTEA. Men på
Tyveri), så ville det å publisere gjøre Eldred til en
kriminell—uansett om noen protesterer eller ikke. Dette var en farlig
strategi å gjennomføre for en handikappet programmerer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10090912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8946720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcongressusconstitutionalpowersof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxconstitutionusprogressclauseof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxprogressclause2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceeldredcaseinvolvementof"></a><p>
Det var her jeg ble involvert i Eldreds kamp. Jeg var en grunnlovsforsker
hvis første lidenskap var grunnlovstolkning. Og selv om grunnlovskursene
aldri fokuserer på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremskritts-bestemmelsen</span>»</span> av grunnloven, så
Kongressen har myndighet til å fremme utviklingen av vitenskap…ved å
sikre forfattere, i et begrenset tidsrom, … eksklusive rettigheter
til sine … skrifter. …
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10103152"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8958960"></a><p>
Som jeg har beskrevet er denne bestemmelsen unik innenfor bestemmelsene som
deler ut myndighet i artikkel I, seksjon 8, av grunnloven vår. Alle de
andre bestemmelsene deler ut myndighet til kongressen ved å ganske enkelt si
ganske spesifikke—ved å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sikre</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive
rettigheter</span>»</span> (det vil si opphavsretten) <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i et begrenset
tidsrom.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10108896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10110224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10111424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10112800"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8964704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8966032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8967296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8968736"></a><p>
I de siste førti årene har kongressen lagt seg på en praksis med å utvide
eksisterende vernetid i opphavsretten. Det som ga meg hodebry var at hvis
vernetiden, hver gang vernetiden holder på å gå ut, så kunne kongressen
oppnå det grunnloven tydelig forbyr—evigvarende vernetid <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">på
avbetaling</span>»</span> som professor Peter Jaszi så pent formulerte det.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10116112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10117408"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10118688"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
8971856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8973024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp8974304"></a><p>
Som akademiker var min første reaksjon å rette meg mot bøkene. Jeg husker
at jeg satt kontoret en kveld og søkte gjennom nett-databaser etter enhver
seriøs vurdering av spørsmålet. Ingen hadde noen gang utfordret kongressens
incentiver bevist å være riktig. Ti av de tretten originale sponsorene til
loven i overhuset mottok maksimale bidrag fra Disneys politiske
handlingskomite. I senatet mottok åtte av de tolv sponsorene
-bidrag.<a href="#ftn.idp10143136" class="footnote" name="idp10143136"><sup class="footnote">[179]</sup></a> RIAA og MPAA er estimert å ha
+bidrag.<a href="#ftn.idp8999008" class="footnote" name="idp8999008"><sup class="footnote">[179]</sup></a> RIAA og MPAA er estimert å ha
brukt mer enn 1,5 lobby-dollarmillioner i 1998-valgperioden. De betalte ut
-mer enn 200 000 dollar i kampanjebidrag.<a href="#ftn.idp10135024" class="footnote" name="idp10135024"><sup class="footnote">[180]</sup></a> Disney er estimert å ha bidratt med mer enn 800 000 dollar i
-gjenvelgelseskampanjer den perioden.<a href="#ftn.idp10145152" class="footnote" name="idp10145152"><sup class="footnote">[181]</sup></a>
+mer enn 200 000 dollar i kampanjebidrag.<a href="#ftn.idp8990896" class="footnote" name="idp8990896"><sup class="footnote">[180]</sup></a> Disney er estimert å ha bidratt med mer enn 800 000 dollar i
+gjenvelgelseskampanjer den perioden.<a href="#ftn.idp9001024" class="footnote" name="idp9001024"><sup class="footnote">[181]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Forfatningsrett</strong></span> er ikke uvitende om det
utvide eksisterende vernetid, så ville det ikke være noen grunnlovsmessig
krav om at vernetiden skulle være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset.</span>»</span> Hvis de kunne
utvide den en gang, så kunne de utvide den igjen og igjen og igjen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10152032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10153360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10154560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9007792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9009120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9010320"></a><p>
Det var også min vurdering at <span class="emphasis"><em>denne</em></span> høyesteretten ikke
ville tillate kongressen å utvide den eksisterende vernetiden. Som alle som
siden omtrent hver eneste aktivitet, når en vurderte det på nasjonal skala,
påvirker mellomstatlig handel. En grunnlov utformet for å begrense
kongressens myndighet ble istedet tolket til å ikke ha noen grense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10160560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9016384"></a><p>
Høyesterett endret, under ledelse av høyesterettsjustitiarius Rehnquist, det
i <em class="citetitle">United States</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>.
Staten hadde argumentert med at å bære våpen nær skoler påvirket
etterprøve kongressen.
</p><p>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi tar en pause for å vurdere implikasjonene fra regjeringens
-argumenter,</span>»</span> skrev høyesterettsjustitiariusen.<a href="#ftn.idp10164368" class="footnote" name="idp10164368"><sup class="footnote">[182]</sup></a> Hvis alt Kongressen sier er mellomstatlig handel
+argumenter,</span>»</span> skrev høyesterettsjustitiariusen.<a href="#ftn.idp9020192" class="footnote" name="idp9020192"><sup class="footnote">[182]</sup></a> Hvis alt Kongressen sier er mellomstatlig handel
dermed må anses å være mellomstatlig handel, så finnes det ingen
begrensninger i Kongressens myndighet. Avgjørelsen i
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> ble bekreftet fire år senere i
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> mot
-<em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<a href="#ftn.idp10167792" class="footnote" name="idp10167792"><sup class="footnote">[183]</sup></a>
+<em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<a href="#ftn.idp9023616" class="footnote" name="idp9023616"><sup class="footnote">[183]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Hvis det er et prinsipp som anvendes her, så bør det være like gyldig for
-Fremskritts-bestemmelsen som for Handels-bestemmelsen.<a href="#ftn.idp10170544" class="footnote" name="idp10170544"><sup class="footnote">[184]</sup></a> Og hvis det anvendes på Fremskritts-bestemmelsen,
+Fremskritts-bestemmelsen som for Handels-bestemmelsen.<a href="#ftn.idp9026368" class="footnote" name="idp9026368"><sup class="footnote">[184]</sup></a> Og hvis det anvendes på Fremskritts-bestemmelsen,
bør prinsippet føre til konklusjonen at Kongressen ikke kan utvide en
eksisternede vernetid. Hvis Kongressen kan utvide en eksisterende vernetid,
så finnes det intet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopp-punkt</span>»</span> for Kongressens myndighet
høyesterett avgjorde saker basert på sin politiske overbevisning slo meg som
å usedvanlig kjedelig. Jeg kom ikke til å dedikere mitt liv til å lære bort
forfatningsrett hvis disse ni dommerne kun skulle være smålige politikere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10177488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10178624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10179776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10180880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9033648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9034784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9035936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9037040"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>La oss nå ta et øyeblikks pause</strong></span> for å
være sikker på at vi forstår hva argumentet i <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
ikke handlet om. Ved å insistere på Grunnlovens begrensning på
lobbyeringspenger—til å få tjue års forlengelse av monopolet. Denne
forlengelsen vil bli tatt fra allemannseiet. Eric Eldred sloss mot
piratvirksomhet som påvirker oss alle.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10183232"></a><p>
-Noen folk ser på allemannseiet med forakt. I skrivet de sendt til
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9039392"></a><p>
+Noen folk ser på allemannseiet med forakt. I innlegget de sendt til
Høyesteretten, skrev Nashville sangforfatterforening at allemannseiet ikke
-var noe annet enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovlig piratvirksomhet.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp10186816" class="footnote" name="idp10186816"><sup class="footnote">[185]</sup></a> Men det er ikke piratvirksomhet når loven tillater
+var noe annet enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovlig piratvirksomhet.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9043024" class="footnote" name="idp9043024"><sup class="footnote">[185]</sup></a> Men det er ikke piratvirksomhet når loven tillater
det. Og i vårt konstituelle system krever loven dette. Noen liker kanskje
ikke paragrafene i grunnloven vår, men det gjør ikke grunnloven til en
piratkodeks.
prosent av disse verkene fortsatt kommersielle verdi. Det var
opphavsrettsinnehaverne for disse 2 prosentene som fikk igjennom CTEA. Men
loven og dens effekt var ikke begrenset til disse 2 prosentene. Loven
-utvidet vernetiden til opphavsretten generelt.<a href="#ftn.idp10194464" class="footnote" name="idp10194464"><sup class="footnote">[186]</sup></a>
+utvidet vernetiden til opphavsretten generelt.<a href="#ftn.idp9050880" class="footnote" name="idp9050880"><sup class="footnote">[186]</sup></a>
</p><p>
tilgjengelig fra forlaget. La oss anta at du var Brewster Kahle, og du
ønsket å gjøre de resterende 9873 tilgjengelig for verden i ditt
iArkiv-prosjekt. Hva ville du måtte gjøre?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10199024"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9055440"></a><p>
Vel, først må du finne ut hvilke av disse 9873 bøkene som fortsatt er vernet
av opphavsretten. Det krever at du går til biblioteket (den informasjonen
er ikke tilgjengelig på nettet) og blar igjennom haller med bøker mens du
Konsekvensen for gamle bøker er at de ikke vil bli digitalisert, og dermed
ganske enkelt vil råtne bort på hyller. Men konsekvensen for andre kreative
arbeider er mye mer alvorlig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10211328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10212144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10212960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9067808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9068624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9069440"></a><p>
Se på historien til Michael Agee, styreleder ved Hal Roach Studios, som eier
opphavsrettene for Helan og Halvan-filmene. Agee har dermed direkte fordel
av Bono-loven. Helan og Halvan-filmene ble laget mellom 1921 og 1951. Kun
begynt å falle i det fri. Da Agee kontrollerer de eksklusive rettighetene
for disse populære filmene så tjener han en god del penger. I følge et
estimat, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">har Roach solgt omtrent 60 000 videokassetter og
-50 000 DVDer av filmene til denne stumfilmduoen.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp10215808" class="footnote" name="idp10215808"><sup class="footnote">[187]</sup></a>
+50 000 DVDer av filmene til denne stumfilmduoen.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9072288" class="footnote" name="idp9072288"><sup class="footnote">[187]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Likevel gikk Agee mot CTEA. Hans begrunnelse er en sjelden dyd i denne
kulturen: uselviskhet. Han argumenterte i sitt innlegg foran høyesteretten
teknologi har redusert disse kostnadene betydelig. Mens det i 1993 kostet
mer enn 10 000 dollar for å restaurere en nittiminutters
sort-hvit-film, så kan det nå koste så lite som 100 dollar a digitalisere en
-times 8-millimeterfilm.<a href="#ftn.idp10147168" class="footnote" name="idp10147168"><sup class="footnote">[188]</sup></a>
+times 8-millimeterfilm.<a href="#ftn.idp9003040" class="footnote" name="idp9003040"><sup class="footnote">[188]</sup></a>
</p><p>
Restaureringsteknologien er ikke den eneste kostnaden, og heller ikke den
at gevinsten vil oppveie de juridiske kostnadene. Dermed vil de aller fleste
gamle filmer, argumenterte Agee, ikke bli restaurert og distribuert før
opphavsretten løper ut.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10232048"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9088528"></a><p>
Men innen opphavsretten for disse filmene er utløpt, vil filmen ha gått
tapt. Disse filmene ble produsert på nitrat-baserte filmruller, og
nitratfilm går i oppløsning over tid. De vil være borte, og metalleskene
Med andre ord, selv om opphavsrettsbeskyttelsen har vært relativt kort for
det meste av vår historie, så ville ikke lang opphavsrettsbeskyttelse gjort
noe forskjell for arbeider som har mistet sin kommersielle verdi. Lang
-opphavsrettsbeskyttelse for disse verkene ville ikke *forstyrret noe*.
+opphavsrettsbeskyttelse for disse verkene ville ikke *påvirket noe som
+helst*.
</p><p>
Men denne situasjonen er nå endret.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
å arkivere kultur, uavhengig av om det er en etterspørsel etter en bestemt
bit av den kulturen eller ikke—da kan vi ikke basere oss på at det
kommersielle markedet vil gjøre biblioteksjobben for oss.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10254592"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9111120"></a><p>
Jeg er blant de første til å være enig i at markedet skal gjøre så mye som
det kan: Vi bør basere oss på markedet så mye som mulig for å spre og gjøre
kultur mulig. Mitt budskap er absolutt ikke imot markedet. Men der vi ser
friheten til å fylle hullene. En forsker beregnet for amerikansk kultur at
94 prosent av filmer, bøker og musikk produsert mellom 1923 og 1946 ikke er
kommersielt tilgjengelig. Uansett hvor mye du elsker markedet, så er 6
-prosent en svikt hvis tilgang er et måleparameter.<a href="#ftn.idp10257568" class="footnote" name="idp10257568"><sup class="footnote">[189]</sup></a>
+prosent en svikt hvis tilgang er et måleparameter.<a href="#ftn.idp9114096" class="footnote" name="idp9114096"><sup class="footnote">[189]</sup></a>
</p><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>I januar 1999</strong></span> anla vi sak på vegne av
saken. Saker tas normalt opp i et kammer med tre deltagere, med unntak av
viktige saker eller saker som tar opp tema som er spesifikk for kretsen som
helhet, der domstolen vil samles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i plenum</span>»</span> for å ta opp saken.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10268192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9124720"></a><p>
Ankedomstolen avviste vår anmodning om å ta opp saken i plenum. Denne gangen
fikk dommer Sentelle følge av det mest liberale medlemmet av ankekretsen i
vunnet. Det 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="idp
10274992"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9131520"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Feilen</strong></span> ble gjort tidlig, skjønt det ble
først åpenbart på slutten. Saken vår hadde hatt støtte hos en ekstraordinær
sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter 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="idp
10277856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10278672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10279488"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9134384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9135200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9136016"></a><p>
Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones Day. Geoff Stewart var den
første, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
kun var interessant for en liten politisk minoritet. Selv om min fokus i
saken ikke var å demonstrere hvor ille Sonny Bono-loven var, men å
demonstrere at den var i strid med grunnloven, så var det mitt håp å gjøre
-argumentere for dette mot en bakgrunn av støttebrev som dekket hele
-spekteret av politiske ståsteder. For å vise at denne påstanden mot CTEA
-var fundert i <span class="emphasis"><em>lovverket</em></span> og ikke i politikken, forsøkte
-vi derfor å samle den videste rekken av troverdige kritikere — ikke
-troverdige fordi de var rike og berømte, men fordi de, samlet sett,
-demonstrerte at denne loven var i strid med grunnloven uavhengig av ens
-politiske syn.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10291680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10292352"></a><p>
+argumentere for dette mot en bakgrunn av innlegg som dekket hele spekteret
+av politiske ståsteder. For å vise at denne påstanden mot CTEA var fundert
+i <span class="emphasis"><em>lovverket</em></span> og ikke i politikken, forsøkte vi derfor å
+samle den videste rekken av troverdige kritikere — ikke troverdige
+fordi de var rike og berømte, men fordi de, samlet sett, demonstrerte at
+denne loven var i strid med grunnloven uavhengig av ens politiske syn.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9148208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9148880"></a><p>
Det første steget skjedde helt av seg selv. Organisasjonen til Phyllis
Schlafly, Ørneforumet, hadde vært motstander av CTEA helt fra begynnelsen.
Fru Schlafly så på CTEA som at kongressen hadde solgt seg. Hun skrev en
penger, ikke rettferdighet, som ga Disney kontroll over Mikke Mus i tjue år
ekstra, hevdet Schlafly.
</p><p>
-I ankedomstolen var Ørneforumet ivrig etter å sende inn et skriv som støtter
-vår posisjon. Deres skriv kom med argumentet som ble kjernekravet i
-Høyesterett: Hvis Kongressen kunne utvide vernetiden i opphavsretten, så
+I ankedomstolen var Ørneforumet ivrig etter å sende inn et innlegg som
+støttet vår posisjon. Deres innlegg kom med argumentet som ble kjernekravet
+i Høyesterett: Hvis Kongressen kunne utvide vernetiden i opphavsretten, så
fantes det ingen begrensninger i Kongressens myndighet til å fastsette
vernetiden. Dette sterkt konservative argumentet overbeviste en sterk og
konservativ dommer, Dommer Sentelle.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10296608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10297440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10298256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10299072"></a><p>
-
-I høyesterett var skrivene som støttet vår side så ulike som de kunne bli.
-De inkluderte et ekstraordinært historisk skriv fra Free Software Foundation
-(opphavet til GNU-prosjektet som gjorde GNU/Linux mulig). De inkluderte et
-*kraftfullt* skriv fra Intel om kostnaden ved usikkerhet. Det var skriv fra
-to jussprofessorer, et fra en opphavsrettsakademiker og et fra Første
-grunnlovstillegg-akademikere. Det var et uttømmende og uomtvistet skriv fra
-verdens ekspert på historien til Fremskritts-bestemmelsen. Og naturligvis
-var det et skriv fra Ørneforumet, som gjentok og styrket argumentet deres.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp10301872"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10302688"></a><p>
-Disse skrivene rammet inn et juridisk argument. Og til støtte for det
-juridiske argumentet var det en rekke *kraftige* skriv fra biblioteker og
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9153136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9153968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9154784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9155600"></a><p>
+
+I høyesterett var innleggene som støttet vår side så ulike som de kunne
+bli. De inkluderte et ekstraordinært historisk innlegg fra Free Software
+Foundation (opphavet til GNU-prosjektet som gjorde GNU/Linux mulig). De
+inkluderte et sterkt innlegg fra Intel om kostnaden ved usikkerhet. Det var
+innlegg fra to jussprofessorer, et fra en opphavsrettsakademiker og et fra
+Første grunnlovstillegg-akademikere. Det var et uttømmende og uomtvistet
+innlegg fra verdens ekspert på historien til Fremskritts-bestemmelsen. Og
+naturligvis var det et innlegg fra Ørneforumet, som gjentok og styrket sitt
+argument.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp9158416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9159232"></a><p>
+Disse innleggene rammet inn et juridisk argument. Og til støtte for det
+juridiske argumentet var det en rekke sterke innlegg fra biblioteker og
arkiver, inkludert Internett-arkivet, den amerikanske forening for
juss-biblioteker og og den nasjonale skribentunionen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10304448"></a><p>
-Men to skriv *fanget argumentet* best. Et *fremmet* argumentet jeg allerede
-har beskrevet: Et skriv fra Hal Roach Studios argumenterte med at med mindre
-loven ble droppet, ville en hel generasjon amerikansk film forsvinne. Det
-andre gjorde det økonomiske argumentet helt klart.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10306224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10307040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10307856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10308672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10309488"></a><p>
-Skrivet fra økonomene var underskrevet av sytten økonomer, derav fem
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9160992"></a><p>
+Men to innlegg *rammet best inn argumentet*. Et *rammet inn* argumentet jeg
+allerede har beskrevet: Et innlegg fra Hal Roach Studios argumenterte med at
+med mindre loven ble droppet, ville en hel generasjon amerikansk film
+forsvinne. Det andre gjorde det økonomiske argumentet helt klart.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9162800"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9163616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9164432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9165248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9166064"></a><p>
+Innlegget fra økonomene var underskrevet av sytten økonomer, derav fem
nobelprisvinnere, inkludert Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman,
Kenneth Arrow, og George Akerlof. Økonomene, slik listen med Nobel-vinnere
demonstrerer, spredte seg over hele det politiske spektrum. Deres
-konklusjon var *kraftig*: Det fantes ingen troverdig påstand om at å utvide
+konklusjon var sterk: Det fantes ingen troverdig påstand om at å utvide
vernetiden for eksisterende opphavsrett ville øke incentivene for å skape.
Slik utvidelse var intet mer enn å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta inn renter</span>»</span>— det
fancy begrepet økonomer bruker for å beskrive særinteresse-lovgiving på
villspor.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10311984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10312768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10313584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10314400"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9168560"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9169344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9170160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9170976"></a><p>
Den samme *innsats for balanse* ble reflektert i den juridiske gruppen vi
-samlet for å forfatte våre skriv i saken. Advokatene fra Jones Day hadde
+samlet for å forfatte våre innlegg i saken. Advokatene fra Jones Day hadde
vært med oss fra starten. Men når saken kom til Høyesteretten la vi til tre
advokater for å hjelpe oss å forme dette argumentet til domstolen. Den ene
var Alan Morrison, en advokat fra Washington-grupperingen Public Citizen som
saker for domstolen og som tidlig hadde gitt oss råd om en Første
grunnlovstillegg-strategi. Til sist, tidligere regjeringssadvokat Charles
Fried.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10316736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10317520"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10318640"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9173312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9174096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9175216"></a><p>
Fried var en spesiell seier for vår side. Alle de andre tidligere
regjeringsadvokatene var hyret inn av den andre siden for å forsvare
Kongressens rett til å gi mediaselskaper den spesielle gunsten med utvidede
</p><p>
Regjeringen hadde, i sitt forsvar av lovendringen, også sin egen samling
venner. Det er verdt å merke seg at ingen av disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vennene</span>»</span>
-inkluderte historikere eller økonomer. Skrivene på den andre siden av saken
-var skrevet ekslusivt av store medieselskaper, kongressmedlemmer og
+inkluderte historikere eller økonomer. Innleggene på den andre siden av
+saken var skrevet ekslusivt av store medieselskaper, kongressmedlemmer og
opphavsrettsinnehavere.
</p><p>
Medieselskapene overrasket ikke. De hadde mest å tjene på loven.
var naturligvis ikke overraskende at opphavsrettsinnehaverne ville forsvare
ideen om at de skulle fortsette å retten til å kontrollere hvem som gjorde
hva med innhold de ønsket å kontrollere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10323312"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10325120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10325936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9179904"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9181712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9182528"></a><p>
Representanter for Dr. Seuss argumenterte for eksempel med at det var bedre
at *boet* etter Dr. Seuss kontrollerte hva som skjedde med verkene til
Dr. Seuss—bedre enn å la det falle i det fri—på grunn av at hvis
denne kreativiteten var allemannseie så ville folk bruke dem til å
-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forherlige narkotika og skape pornografi.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp10328320" class="footnote" name="idp10328320"><sup class="footnote">[190]</sup></a> Dette var også motivet til *boet* etter Gershwin,
+<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forherlige narkotika og skape pornografi.</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp9184912" class="footnote" name="idp9184912"><sup class="footnote">[190]</sup></a> Dette var også motivet til *boet* etter Gershwin,
som forsvarte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttelse</span>»</span> av verkene til George
Gershwin. De avviste for eksempel å lisensiere ut <em class="citetitle">Progy and
Bess</em> til enhver som nektet å bruke Afrikans-amerikanere i
-rollelista.<a href="#ftn.idp10331344" class="footnote" name="idp10331344"><sup class="footnote">[191]</sup></a> Det var deres syn på
+rollelista.<a href="#ftn.idp9187936" class="footnote" name="idp9187936"><sup class="footnote">[191]</sup></a> Det var deres syn på
hvordan denne delen av amerikansk kultur bør kontrolleres, og de ønsket
hjelp fra denne loven til å effektuere denne kontrollen.
</p><p>
på en bestemt måte, så er det akkurat det Første grunnlovstillegg
tradisjonelt er ment å blokkere.
</p><p>
-Vi hevdet det samme i et avsluttende skriv. Ikke bare ville det å
+Vi hevdet det samme i et avsluttende innlegg. Ikke bare ville det å
opprettholde CTEA bety at det ikke fantes noen grense for Kongressens
myndighet til å utvide vernetiden — utvidelser som ytterligere ville
snevre inn markedet. Det ville også bety at det ikke var noen begrensninger
<span class="strong"><strong>Mellom februar</strong></span> og oktober gjorde jeg lite
annet enn å forberede meg for denne saken. Som jeg nevnte tidligere, satte
jeg strategien tidlig.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10338416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10339232"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9195184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9196000"></a><p>
Høyesteretten var delt i to viktige grupper. En gruppe kalte vi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
konservative.</span>»</span> Den andre kalte vi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">resten.</span>»</span> De
konservative inkluderte høyesterettsjustitiarius Rehnquist, dommer O'Connor,
dommer Scalia, dommer Kennedy og dommer Thomas. Disse fem hadde vært mest
konsistente i å begrense Kongressens makt. Disse var de fem som hadde
støttet <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em>-rekken av saker som sa at en
-*opplistet myndighet* måtte tolkes slik at den sikret at Kongressens
-myndighet hadde begrensninger.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10342624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
+opplistet kompetanse måtte tolkes slik at den sikret at Kongressens
+kompetanse hadde begrensninger.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9199392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
Resten var de fire dommerne som sterkt hadde vært imot å begrense
Kongressens myndighet. Disse fire — dommer Stevens, dommer Souter,
forventet at hun ville være enig med skriftene til datteren: at Kongressen
hadde myndighet i denne sammenhengen til å gjøre som den ønsket, selv om det
Kongressen ønsket ikke ga mening.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10348096"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9204912"></a><p>
Tett bak dommer Gunsburg var to dommere som vi også så på som usannsynlige
allierte, men vi kunne bli overrasket. Dommer Souter favoriserte sterkt å
la Kongressen bestemme, og det samme gjorde dommer Breyer. Men begge var
også svært følsomme for ytringsfrihetsbekymringer. Og vi trodde sterkt at
det var viktige ytringsfrihetsargumenter mot disse tilbakevirkende
utvidelsene.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10349984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9206800"></a><p>
Den eneste stemmen vi kunne være trygg på var den til dommer Stevens.
Historien viser at dommer Stevens er en av de største dommerne i denne
domstolen. Han stemmer har vært konsistent selektiv, hvilket bare betyr at
mellom disse fem og få i hvert fall et flertall over på vår side. Dermed
ble det ene overstyrende argument som ga liv til vår påstand hvilende på de
konservatives viktigste *jurisprudentiale* nyskapning—argumentet som
-dommer Sentelle hadde basert seg på i ankedomstolen, at Kongressens makt
-måte tolkes slik at de *opplistede myndighetene* hadde begrensninger.
+dommer Sentelle hadde basert seg på i ankedomstolen, at Kongressens
+kompetanse måte tolkes slik at kompetansene som var listet opp hadde
+begrensninger.
</p><p>
Dette var dermed kjernen i vår strategi—en strategi som jeg er
Ikke utvid den eksisterende vernetiden. Opponeringsrundene var effektiv
trening. Jeg fant måter å bringe hvert eneste spørsmål tilbake til den
sentrale idéen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10366576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10367392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10368208"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9223296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9224112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9224928"></a><p>
En opponeringsrunde var foran advokatene hos Jones Day. Don Ayer var
skeptikeren. Han hadde tjenestegjort i justisdepartementet under Reagen med
regjeringsadvokat Charles Fried. Han hadde presentert mange saker foran
konsistent praksis for to hundre år. Du må få dem til å se skaden—med
ettertrykk få dem til å se skaden. Hvis de ikke ser den, så har vi ingen
sjanse til å vinne.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10370672"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9227392"></a><p>
Han hadde kanskje lagt frem mange saker foran denne domstolen, tenkte jeg,
men han hadde ikke forstått dens sjel. Som en *clerk* hadde jeg sett
dommerne gjøre det riktige — ikke på grunn av politikk, men fordi det
</p><p>
Da høyesterettsjustitiariusen ba meg om å starte på min argumentasjon,
begynte jeg der jeg planla å holde meg: ved spørsmålet om begrensningene i
-Kongressens makt. Dette var en sak om de *opplistede myndighetene*, sa jeg,
-og hvorvidt disse *opplistede myndighetene* har en grense.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10379008"></a><p>
+Kongressens makt. Dette var en sak om de opplistede kompetansene, sa jeg,
+og hvorvidt disse opplistede kompetansene har grenser.
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9235744"></a><p>
Dommer O'Connor stoppet meg før det jeg var kommet et minutt inn i
åpningsforedraget mitt. Historien plaget henne.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
dette er en strukturell begrensning som er nødvendig for å sikre at det som
ellers ville være en evigvarende vernetid ikke blir tillatt i
opphavsrettsloven.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10388608"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9245312"></a><p>
Det var et riktig svar, men det var ikke det riktige svaret. Det riktige
-svaret var i stedet at skaden var åpenbar og dyptgripende. En rekke
-*orienteringer* hadde blitt skrevet om den. Han ønsket å høre det. Og det
-var her rådet fra Don Ayer burde ha hatt betydning. Dette var en lett
-passning, og mitt svar bommet fullstendig.
+svaret var i stedet at skaden var åpenbar og dyptgripende. En rekke innlegg
+hadde blitt skrevet om den. Han ønsket å høre det. Og det var her rådet
+fra Don Ayer burde ha hatt betydning. Dette var en lett passning, og mitt
+svar bommet fullstendig.
</p><p>
Det andre kom fra høyesterettsjustitiariusen, som hele saken hadde blitt
utformet for. For høyesterettsjustitiariusen hadde utformet
lovpraksis som ikke kan rettferdiggjøres med vanlig analyse av det første
grunnlovstillegg eller med korrekt lesning av begrensningene som er bygd inn
i opphavsrettsbestemmelsen.
-</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10394912"></a><p>
+</p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9251600"></a><p>
Ting gikk bedre for oss når regjeringen presenterte sitt åpningsforedrag.
For nå tok retten tak i kjernen i våre påstander. Dommer Scalia spurte
regjeringsadvokat Olson,
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Dommer Scalia: Du sier at den funksjonelle ekvivalenten til en ubegrenset
vernetid ville være i strid [med grunnloven], men det er jo nøyaktig det
-argumentet som fremmes av *saksøkerne* her, at en begrenset vernetid som er
+argumentet som fremmes av saksøkerne her, at en begrenset vernetid som er
utvidbar er den funksjonelle ekvivalenten til en ubegrenset vernetid.
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Når Olson var ferdig var det min tur til å gi en avsluttende motinnlegg.
og ikke en talsmann, avsluttet jeg med å peke på Domstolens lange historie
med å innføre begrensninger i Kongressens myndighet over opphavsretts- og
patentbestemmelsen i grunnloven — faktisk var det første tilfellet der
-en lov fra Kongressen ble funnet å gå ut over en *bestemt og opplistet*
-myndighet basert på opphavsretts- og patentbestemmelsen. Alt sant, men det
+en lov fra Kongressen ble funnet å gå ut over en spesifikk opplistet
+kompetanse basert på opphavsretts- og patentbestemmelsen. Alt sant, men det
kom ikke til å vinne domstolen over på min side.
</p><p>
fant ikke argumentet noe sted. Saken var ikke en gang sitert. Argumentet
som var kjerneargumentet i vår sak var ikke en gang tilstede i domstolens
domsavsigelsen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10408736"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9265424"></a><p>
-Dommer Gunsburg ignorerte ganske enkelt argumentet om *opplistede*
-myndigheter. Konsistent med hennes syn om at Kongressens makt generelt ikke
+Dommer Gunsburg ignorerte ganske enkelt argumentet om opplistede
+kompetanser. Konsistent med hennes syn om at Kongressens makt generelt ikke
var begrenset, hadde hun konkludert med at Kongressens makt ikke var
begrenset her.
</p><p>
var viktig, og jeg hadde feilet i å innse at uansett hvor mye jeg hater et
system der domstolen kan velge hvilke konstitusjonelle verdier den vil
respektere, så er det systemet vi har.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10414560"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9271248"></a><p>
Dommerne Breyer og Stevens skrev en svært sterk dissens. Stevens betenkning
var utformet basert på lovverket: Han argumenterte med at tradisjonen til
immateriallretten ikke burde støtte denne uberettigede utvidelsen av
Fremskritts-bestemmelsen kunne bety noe helt annet avhengig av hvorvidt de
handlet om patenter eller opphavsrett. Domstolen lot dommer Stevens påstand
stå ubesvart.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10416624"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9273312"></a><p>
Dommer Breyers betenkning, kanskje den beste betenkningen han noensinne har
<span class="strong"><strong>Tap gir depresjon</strong></span>. De sier det er et
sunnhetstegn når depresjon må vike for sinne. Mitt sinne kom raskt, men det
kurerte ikke depresjonen. Sinnet gikk i to retninger.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10424368"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9281056"></a><p>
Det var først sinne mot de fem <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Konservative.</span>»</span> Det ville vært
en ting om de hadde forklart hvorfor prinsippet i
<em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> ikke skulle anvendes i dette tilfellet. Jeg
Mitt sinne mot de konservative ga raskt etter for sinnet mot meg selv. For
jeg hadde latt en holdning til loven som jeg likte forstyrre en holdning til
loven slik den er.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10432512"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9289200"></a><p>
De fleste advokater, og de fleste jussprofessesorer, har liten tålmodighet
for idealisme om domstolene generelt, og denne høyesteretten spesielt. De
fleste har et mer pragmatisk syn. Da Don Ayer sa at denne saken kunne
nektet å stå foran dette publikumet og forsøke å overtale dem med den
lidenskapen jeg hadde brukt andre steder. Det var ikke på et slikt grunnlag
en domstol skulle avgjøre saken.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10436992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10437776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9293680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9294464"></a><p>
Ville det gått annerledes hvis jeg hadde argumentert litt forskjellig?
Ville det ha gått annerledes hvis Don Ayer hadde argumentert? Eller Charles
Fried? Eller Kathleen Sullivan?
liten interesse i å ikke gjøre det som er riktig. Jeg klarer ikke la være å
tenke at om jeg hadde gitt slipp på mitt pene bilde av jussen uten følelser,
så hadde jeg overbevist dem.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10441520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9298208"></a><p>
Men selv om jeg ikke kunne det, så unnskylder dette ikke det som skjedde i
januar. For i starten av denne saken hadde en av USAs ledende professorer
innen immaterialretten uttalt offentlig at det var jeg gjorde en feil ved å
De beste responsene dukket opp i tegneseriene. Det var en haug veldig
morsomme tegninger—av Mikke i fengsel og dets like. Det beste fra
mitt ståsted i saken, var fra Ruben Bolling, gjengitt i <a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie">Figur 13.1, «Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie»</a>. Tekstlinjen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mektig og rik</span>»</span> er litt
-urettferdig. Men slaget i ansiktet føltes akkurat slik ut.<a class="indexterm" name="idp10451584"></a>
-</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="95%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/tom-the-dancing-bug.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie"></td></tr></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10454976"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
+urettferdig. Men slaget i ansiktet føltes akkurat slik ut.<a class="indexterm" name="idp9308384"></a>
+</p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div align="center"><table border="0" summary="manufactured viewport for HTML img" style="cellpadding: 0; cellspacing: 0;" width="95%"><tr><td align="center"><img src="images/tom-the-dancing-bug.png" align="middle" width="100%" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug-tegneserie"></td></tr></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9311776"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
Bildet som for alltid står inne i hodet mitt er det som ble utløst av et
sitat fra <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>. At <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det store
eksperimentet</span>»</span> vi kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allemannseie</span>»</span> er over? Når
grunnloven vår en forpliktelse til å frigjøre kultur. I den saken som jeg
hadde ansvar for, ga høyesterett effektivt avkall på den forpliktelsen. En
bedre advokat ville fått dem til å annerledes på det.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10056288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10056288" class="para"><sup class="para">[177] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp8911936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8911936" class="para"><sup class="para">[177] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10056672"></a> Det er en parallell her til
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8912320"></a> Det er en parallell her til
pornografi som er litt vanskelig å beskrive men som er veldig sterk. Et
fenomen som Internett skapte var en verden av ikke-kommersiell
pornografi—folk som distribuerte porno men som ikke tjente penger
utgivere etter at Internett dukket opp. Alle Eric Eldred-ene i verden før
internettet var ekstremt få. Likevel skulle en tro at det er minst like
viktig å beskytte alle Eldred-ene i verden som det er å beskytte
-ikke-kommersielle pornografer.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10081440" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10081440" class="para"><sup class="para">[178] </sup></a>
+ikke-kommersielle pornografer.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8937248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8937248" class="para"><sup class="para">[178] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10082144"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp10083216"></a> Hele teksten er: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] ønsket at vernetiden i
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp8937952"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp8939024"></a> Hele teksten er: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] ønsket at vernetiden i
opphavsretten skulle vare evig. Jeg er informert av ansatte at en slik
endring ville være i strid med grunnloven. Jeg inviterer dere alle til å
jobbe sammen med meg for å styrke våre opphavsrettslover på alle måter som
er tilgjengelig for oss. Som dere vet, er det også et forslag fra Jack
Valenti om en vernetid som varer evig minus en dag. Kanskje komiteen kan se
på i neste periode.</span>»</span> 144 Kongr. Ref. H9946, 9951-2 (7. oktober 1998).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10143136" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10143136" class="para"><sup class="para">[179] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8999008" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8999008" class="para"><sup class="para">[179] </sup></a>
Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10135024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10135024" class="para"><sup class="para">[180] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8990896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8990896" class="para"><sup class="para">[180] </sup></a>
Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
Age,</span>»</span> tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10145152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10145152" class="para"><sup class="para">[181] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9001024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9001024" class="para"><sup class="para">[181] </sup></a>
Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
#50</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10164368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10164368" class="para"><sup class="para">[182] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9020192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9020192" class="para"><sup class="para">[182] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10167792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10167792" class="para"><sup class="para">[183] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9023616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9023616" class="para"><sup class="para">[183] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">United States</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>,
529 U.S. 598 (2000).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10170544" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10170544" class="para"><sup class="para">[184] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9026368" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9026368" class="para"><sup class="para">[184] </sup></a>
-If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
-from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
-the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
-would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce—the
-limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
-the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
-interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
-copyrights—the limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span>
-notwithstanding.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10186816" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10186816" class="para"><sup class="para">[185] </sup></a>
+Hvis det er et prinsipp om opplistede kompetanser, så bør dette prinsippet
+kunne overføres fra en opplistet kompetanse til den neste. Det
+utslagsgivende poenget når det gjalt handelsbestemmelsen var at tolkningen
+staten kom med ville gi staten ubegrenset kompetanse til å regulere
+handel—på tross av begrensningen om mellomstatlig handel. Også i
+denne sammenehengen ville statens tolkning gi staten ubegrenset kompetanse
+til å regulere opphavsrett—på tross av begrensningen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et
+begrenset tidsrom.</span>»</span>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9043024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9043024" class="para"><sup class="para">[185] </sup></a>
-Orientering fra Nashvillesangforfatterforening,
-<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
-186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10194464" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10194464" class="para"><sup class="para">[186] </sup></a>
+Innlegg fra Nashvillesangforfatterforening, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
+mot <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618),
+n.10, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
+#51</a>.
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9050880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9050880" class="para"><sup class="para">[186] </sup></a>
Tallet 2 prosent er en ekstrapolering fra en undersøkelse gjort av
kongressens forskningstjeneste, med bakgrunn i de estimerte
fornyelsespennene. Se Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
mot <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10215808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10215808" class="para"><sup class="para">[187] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9072288" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9072288" class="para"><sup class="para">[187] </sup></a>
Se David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
David Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme
Court Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9. oktober 2002.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10147168" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10147168" class="para"><sup class="para">[188] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9003040" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9003040" class="para"><sup class="para">[188] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp10257568" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10257568" class="para"><sup class="para">[189] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9114096" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9114096" class="para"><sup class="para">[189] </sup></a>
Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>»</span>
20 December 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10328320" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10328320" class="para"><sup class="para">[190] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9184912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9184912" class="para"><sup class="para">[190] </sup></a>
-Orientering fra 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 id="ftn.idp10331344" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10331344" class="para"><sup class="para">[191] </sup></a>
+Innlegg fra 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 id="ftn.idp9187936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9187936" class="para"><sup class="para">[191] </sup></a>
Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
spesielt lang flytur til byen jeg setter minst pris på. Kjøreturen inn til
byen fra Dulles flyplass var forsinket på grunn av trafikken, sa jeg åpnet
opp datamaskinen og skrev en kronikk.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10463744"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9320592"></a><p>
Det var en botsøvelse. Gjennom hele flyturen fra San Francisco til
Washington hadde jeg i mitt indre øre hørt om og om igjen det samme rådet
fra Don Ayer: Du må få dem til å forstå hvorfor det er viktig. Og innimellom
tilgang og spredning av kunnskap. La den eksistere så lenge som kongressen
tillater det for de verk der verdien er minst en dollar. For alt annet,
slipp innholdet fri.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10471056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9327904"></a><p>
Reaksjonen på denne idéen var utrolig sterk. Steve Forbes gikk god for den
i en leder, og jeg mottok et skred av epost og brev med støtte. Når du
fokuserer temaet på tapt kreativitet, så ser folk at opphavsrettssystemet
tillatelse til å bruke eller lisensiere deres verk. Dette systemet ville
redusere disse kostnadene ved å etablere i hvert fall et register hvor
opphavsrettseierene kan identifiseres.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10474608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10475424"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9331456"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9332272"></a><p>
Som jeg beskrev i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a> ble formaliteter fjernet fra opphavsrettsloven i
1976, da kongressen fulgte etter europeerne i å avskaffe alle formelle krav
-før opphavsretten ble innvilget.<a href="#ftn.idp10477792" class="footnote" name="idp10477792"><sup class="footnote">[192]</sup></a>
+før opphavsretten ble innvilget.<a href="#ftn.idp9334640" class="footnote" name="idp9334640"><sup class="footnote">[192]</sup></a>
Europeerne sies å anse opphavsrett som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturlig rettighet.</span>»</span>
Naturlige rettigheter trenger ingen formaliterer for å eksistere.
Tradisjoner lik den anglo-amerikanske som har krevd at opphavsrettseiere må
en verden uten formaliterer skader den som skaper. Muligheten til å spre
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span> er fjernet når det ikke er noen enkel
måte å vite hva som er beskyttet og hva som ikke er det.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10484880"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9341728"></a><p>
Kampen mot formaliteter oppnådde sin første virkelige seier i Berlin i
1908. Internasjonale opphavsrettsadvokater fikk på plass et tillegg i
Bern-konvensjonen i 1909 som krevde opphavsrettslig verneperiode som rakk
av kreativ eiendom med mindre det finnes en enkel måte å bekrefte hvem som
er forfatteren og hvilke rettigheter han har. Enkle transaksjoner blir
umulige i en verden uten formaliteter. Kompliserte, dyre,
-<span class="emphasis"><em>advokat</em></span>-transaksjoner trer inn i stedet. <a class="indexterm" name="idp10496592"></a>
+<span class="emphasis"><em>advokat</em></span>-transaksjoner trer inn i stedet. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9353392"></a>
</p><p>
Dette var forståelsen av problemet med Sonny Bono-loven som vi forsøkte å
demonstrere for retten. Dette var den delen som den ikke
historiske data ville dette systemet få opp mot 98 prosent av kommersielle
verk, kommersielle verk som ikke lenger har et kommersielt liv, til å falle
i det fri etter femti år. Hva tror du?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10507344"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9364144"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Da Steve Forbes</strong></span> 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 kan være villige til å ta det første
skrittet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10509776"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9366576"></a><p>
En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
forsatt mulig å forstå hvorfor loven favoriserer Hollywood: De fleste
kjenner ikke igjen grunner til å begrense vernetiden for opphavsretten. Det
er dermed forsatt mulig å se god tro hos motstanden.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10523760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9380560"></a><p>
Men når opphavsrettseiere motsetter seg et forslag som Eldred-loven, så er
det endelig et eksempel som eksponerer den nakne egeninteressen som holder
denne krigen i gang. Dette lovforslaget ville frigjøre en ekstraordinær
På samme måte som RCA fryktet konkurransen fra FM, frykter de konkurransen
fra allemannseiet knyttet til en befolkning som nå har mulighet til å skape
med den og dele sine egne kreasjoner.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10532224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10533008"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9389024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9389808"></a><p>
Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket har dette synet. Det er som
om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom. MPAA
står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillatelsessamfunn.</span>»</span> Fortiden kan kun kultiveres hvis du kan
finne eieren og be om tillatelse til å bygge på hans verk. Fremtiden vil bli
kontrollert av denne døde (og ofte forsvunnede) hånd fra fortiden.
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10477792" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10477792" class="para"><sup class="para">[192] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9334640" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9334640" class="para"><sup class="para">[192] </sup></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10478464"></a> Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9335312"></a> Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the
Berne Convention, national copyright legislation sometimes made protection
depend upon compliance with formalities such as registration, deposit, and
affixation of notice of the author's claim of copyright. However, starting
ingen afrikansk stat råd til legemidlene for det store flertall av sine
innbyggere: 15 000 dollar er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt
pr. innbygger i Zimbabwe. Med slike priser er disse legemidlene fullstendig
-utilgjengelig.<a href="#ftn.idp10551952" class="footnote" name="idp10551952"><sup class="footnote">[193]</sup></a>
+utilgjengelig.<a href="#ftn.idp9408704" class="footnote" name="idp9408704"><sup class="footnote">[193]</sup></a>
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpatentsonpharmaceuticals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpharmaceuticalpatents"></a><p>
hvis legemidler var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
fra India. Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
-europeiske union.<a href="#ftn.idp10567984" class="footnote" name="idp10567984"><sup class="footnote">[194]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10571232"></a><p>
+europeiske union.<a href="#ftn.idp9424768" class="footnote" name="idp9424768"><sup class="footnote">[194]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9428016"></a><p>
Men USA var imot lovendringen. Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika … til å ikke tillate
-tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp10018992" class="footnote" name="idp10018992"><sup class="footnote">[195]</sup></a> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
+tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><a href="#ftn.idp8874496" class="footnote" name="idp8874496"><sup class="footnote">[195]</sup></a> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
(USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven—og for å legge
press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner. Samme år gikk mer enn førti
patenter. Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
-Sør-Afrika.<a href="#ftn.idp10575808" class="footnote" name="idp10575808"><sup class="footnote">[196]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10579088"></a><p>
+Sør-Afrika.<a href="#ftn.idp9432592" class="footnote" name="idp9432592"><sup class="footnote">[196]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9435872"></a><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
til legemidler. Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen
</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.<a href="#ftn.idp10584432" class="footnote" name="idp10584432"><sup class="footnote">[197]</sup></a> Det var på
+eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<a href="#ftn.idp9441280" class="footnote" name="idp9441280"><sup class="footnote">[197]</sup></a> Det var på
grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
legemidlene ikke skulle strømme inn til Afrika. Det var prinsippet om
viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10592192"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9448992"></a><p>
La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk. En gang om tredve år vil våre
barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje? Hvordan
kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var å få 15
kanskje millioner dør. Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
hjelp av dette ideal—ukrenkeligheten til en idé som kalles
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10603968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10606416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10607616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10608928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10610368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10611616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10612928"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9460656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9463104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9464368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9465680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9467120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9468368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9469616"></a><p>
Så når du *konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft*, hva vil du si? Når
den sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har
gjort, hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det? Hva er argumentet?
markedsprisen. En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
balansert politikk. I det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10617008"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10618352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10619696"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9473760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9475104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9476448"></a><p>
Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse. Vi har mistet det
kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
ekstremisme. En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur—sært, og med konsekvenser mer
alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10621216"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9477968"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>En enkel idé</strong></span> blender oss, og under dekke
av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt
Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke til. Mektige lobbyister,
kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt
storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10629648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10630464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10633280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10634384"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10635216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10636064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10636912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10638032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10638864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10641344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10642160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10642992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9486400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9487216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9490032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9491136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9491920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9492768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9493616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9494736"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9495568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9498048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9498864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9499696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>I august 2003</strong></span> brøt en kamp ut i USA om en
avgjørelse fra Verdens opphavsrettsorganisasjon (WIPO) om å avlyse et
-møte.<a href="#ftn.idp10646768" class="footnote" name="idp10646768"><sup class="footnote">[198]</sup></a> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
+møte.<a href="#ftn.idp9503520" class="footnote" name="idp9503520"><sup class="footnote">[198]</sup></a> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
interessenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for
felleskapet.</span>»</span> Disse prosjektene hadde lyktes i å produsere goder for
IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og Searle.) Det inkluderte Globalt
posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet. Og
det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri programvare.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10656240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9512912"></a><p>
Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessiglawrenceininternationaldebateonintellectualproperty"></a><p>
Dermed var, i forholdt til perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
-ideell.<a href="#ftn.idp10660848" class="footnote" name="idp10660848"><sup class="footnote">[199]</sup></a> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
+ideell.<a href="#ftn.idp9517616" class="footnote" name="idp9517616"><sup class="footnote">[199]</sup></a> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
både kommersielle og ikke-kommersielle verk. De involverte i hovedsak
vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver. Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldsummitontheinformationsocietywsis"></a><p>
Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
-om WIPO. I februar 2003 leverte jeg et *nøkkelforedrag* på en forberedende
+om WIPO. I februar 2003 holdt jeg et innledende foredrag på en forberedende
konferanse for Verdenstoppmøtet om informasjonssamfunnet (WSIS). På en
pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om. Jeg
svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde. Og dermed
virket møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
fellesgoder</span>»</span> å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10669280"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10670704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10672144"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10675136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9526000"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9527424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9528864"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9531856"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmicrosoftonfreesoftware"></a><p>
Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
programvare.</span>»</span> Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare,</span>»</span> til sine egne interne
behov.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10680160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10681264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10682096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10682912"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9536880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9537984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9538816"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9539632"></a><p>
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
biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>—og IBM er helt klart en
kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører. Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
-å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<a href="#ftn.idp10685904" class="footnote" name="idp10685904"><sup class="footnote">[200]</sup></a>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10691952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10693376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10694208"></a><p>
+å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<a href="#ftn.idp9542624" class="footnote" name="idp9542624"><sup class="footnote">[200]</sup></a>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9548672"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9550160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9550992"></a><p>
Mer viktig for vårt formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
programvare</span>»</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
programvare. Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over programvare, så kunne ikke
fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar i bruk programvaren. Den
er dermed like avhengig av åndsverksloven som Microsoft.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10703664"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrightsinternationalorganizationonissuesof2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxworldintellectualpropertyorganizationwipo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkrimjonathan"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9560432"></a><p>
Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet. Og
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.<a href="#ftn.idp10706336" class="footnote" name="idp10706336"><sup class="footnote">[201]</sup></a> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
+slikt møte.<a href="#ftn.idp9563104" class="footnote" name="idp9563104"><sup class="footnote">[201]</sup></a> 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
åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10709680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10711072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9566448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9567776"></a><p>
Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
møtet. Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
WIPO.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10713984"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9570688"></a><p>
Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10715760"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9572464"></a><p>
For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige. Som jeg beskrev, er det
meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
immaterielle retten kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett.</span>»</span> Uten den vil
å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse—den type feil som er
tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10684896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10720768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10721888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10722704"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9541616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9577536"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9578656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9579472"></a><p>
For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt? Som jeg fikk
kjeft for på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
basert på legemidler med patenter som er utløpt) er i strid med WIPOs
oppdrag? Svekker allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter? Ville det vært
bedre om Internetts protokoller hadde vært patentert?
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10725504"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9582272"></a><p>
For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
tradisjon, av individer og selskaper. De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
folkene og eiendommene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet.
Føydalismen var avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrering. Det sloss
mot enhver frihet som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10739184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10740000"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9596048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9596864"></a><p>
Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
-vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<a href="#ftn.idp10741328" class="footnote" name="idp10741328"><sup class="footnote">[202]</sup></a>
+vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<a href="#ftn.idp9598192" class="footnote" name="idp9598192"><sup class="footnote">[202]</sup></a>
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
mot det føydale.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10744768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10746080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9601632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9602944"></a><p>
Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette. En heftig debatt brøt ut i
kommentarfeltet. Fru Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening. Men det var spesielt en
kommentar som gjorde meg trist. En anonym kommentator skrev,
-</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10748704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10750064"></a><p>
+</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9605504"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9606864"></a><p>
George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
(<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
ingen illusjoner når det gjelder ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett
om de er republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon
er hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10754848"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9611712"></a><p>
Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen. I
stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
mesteparten av vår historie—fri kultur.
</p><p>
Hvis dette er galskap, så la det bli flere gærninger. Snart.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10762832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10763616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10764432"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9619696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9620480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9621296"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Det finnes øyeblikk</strong></span> av håp i denne
kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge
eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere medieeierskap, dannet det
</p><p>
Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
for våre tragedie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10775264"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9632128"></a><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Mens jeg skriver</strong></span> disse avsluttende
ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre
-individer.<a href="#ftn.idp10777248" class="footnote" name="idp10777248"><sup class="footnote">[203]</sup></a> Eminem har nettopp blitt
-saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span> noen andres musikk.<a href="#ftn.idp10784608" class="footnote" name="idp10784608"><sup class="footnote">[204]</sup></a> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan har
+individer.<a href="#ftn.idp9634112" class="footnote" name="idp9634112"><sup class="footnote">[203]</sup></a> Eminem har nettopp blitt
+saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span> noen andres musikk.<a href="#ftn.idp9641472" class="footnote" name="idp9641472"><sup class="footnote">[204]</sup></a> Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan har
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
-over.<a href="#ftn.idp10787280" class="footnote" name="idp10787280"><sup class="footnote">[205]</sup></a> En på innsiden i
+over.<a href="#ftn.idp9644144" class="footnote" name="idp9644144"><sup class="footnote">[205]</sup></a> En på innsiden i
Hollywood—som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym—rapporterer
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene. De har fantastisk
[gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn
snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som
antas å bryte loven. Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker
en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10791776"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10792528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10793344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10794128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10794944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10795760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10796576"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9648640"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9649392"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9650208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9650992"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9651808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9652624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9653440"></a><p>
Imens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil bygge
opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste ned
-BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<a href="#ftn.idp10798880" class="footnote" name="idp10798880"><sup class="footnote">[206]</sup></a> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
+BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<a href="#ftn.idp9655744" class="footnote" name="idp9655744"><sup class="footnote">[206]</sup></a> 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.<a href="#ftn.idp10801312" class="footnote" name="idp10801312"><sup class="footnote">[207]</sup></a> Jeg har fortalt en mørk
+landet.<a href="#ftn.idp9658176" class="footnote" name="idp9658176"><sup class="footnote">[207]</sup></a> Jeg har fortalt en mørk
historie. Sannheten er mer blandet. En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
-</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10551952" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10551952" class="para"><sup class="para">[193] </sup></a>
+</p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9408704" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9408704" class="para"><sup class="para">[193] </sup></a>
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
#55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger legemidler i
utviklingsland dem de trenger—og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10567984" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10567984" class="para"><sup class="para">[194] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9424768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9424768" class="para"><sup class="para">[194] </sup></a>
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="idp10569056"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp10570160"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10018992" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10018992" class="para"><sup class="para">[195] </sup></a>
+37. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9425840"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9426944"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp8874496" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp8874496" class="para"><sup class="para">[195] </sup></a>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
kriminalomsorg, medikamentregelverk og menneskelige ressurser, House
Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1. økt., Ser. No. 106-126 (22. juli
1999), 150–57 (uttalelse fra James Love).
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10575808" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10575808" class="para"><sup class="para">[196] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9432592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9432592" class="para"><sup class="para">[196] </sup></a>
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
rapport forberedt for Verdens opphavsrettsorganisasjon</em>
-(Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp10584432" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10584432" class="para"><sup class="para">[197] </sup></a>
+(Washington, D.C., 2000), 15. </p></div><div id="ftn.idp9441280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9441280" class="para"><sup class="para">[197] </sup></a>
Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10646768" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10646768" class="para"><sup class="para">[198] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9503520" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9503520" class="para"><sup class="para">[198] </sup></a>
Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>»</span>
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
#60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
at WIPO,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10660848" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10660848" class="para"><sup class="para">[199] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9517616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9517616" class="para"><sup class="para">[199] </sup></a>
Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10685904" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10685904" class="para"><sup class="para">[200] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9542624" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9542624" class="para"><sup class="para">[200] </sup></a>
Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10706336" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10706336" class="para"><sup class="para">[201] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9563104" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9563104" class="para"><sup class="para">[201] </sup></a>
Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>»</span> tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10741328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10741328" class="para"><sup class="para">[202] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9598192" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9598192" class="para"><sup class="para">[202] </sup></a>
Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
-210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="idp10575648"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10777248" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10777248" class="para"><sup class="para">[203] </sup></a>
+210–20. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9432432"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9634112" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9634112" class="para"><sup class="para">[203] </sup></a>
John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>»</span> CNET News.com,
<em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wired
News</em>, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10784608" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10784608" class="para"><sup class="para">[204] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9641472" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9641472" class="para"><sup class="para">[204] </sup></a>
Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued … by a Little Old
Lady,</span>»</span> mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10787280" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10787280" class="para"><sup class="para">[205] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9644144" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9644144" class="para"><sup class="para">[205] </sup></a>
Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
Dylan Songs,</span>»</span> Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10798880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10798880" class="para"><sup class="para">[206] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9655744" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9655744" class="para"><sup class="para">[206] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>»</span> pressemelding
fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10801312" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10801312" class="para"><sup class="para">[207] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9658176" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9658176" class="para"><sup class="para">[207] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>»</span> Creative Commons Weblog,
omgivelse hvor all bruk av innhold krever tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Klipp og
lim</span>»</span>-verden som definerer Internett i dag vil bli en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skaff
tillatelse til å klippe og lime</span>»</span>-verden som er en skapers mareritt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10827792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10829184"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9684608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9685936"></a><p>
Det som trengs er en måte å si noe i midten—hverken <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">alle
rettigheter reservert</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ingen rettigheter
reservert</span>»</span> men <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noen rettigheter reservert</span>»</span>—og
beskytter <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privatlivet</span>»</span> i det offentlige rom) og mange plasser
ikke av normer (kikking og sladder er bare moro), men i stedet fra
kostnadene som friksjon påfører enhver som ønsker å spionere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10846784"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxamazon"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9703376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetprivacyprotectionon"></a><p>
Så kommer Internett, hvor kostnaden med å spore særlig det som blir bladd i
har blitt svært liten. Hvis du er en kunde av Amazon, så vil Amazon samle
informasjon om hva du har sett på mens du tittet på sidene der. Du vet
inn disse dataene enn å la være. Friksjonen har forsvunnet, og dermed
forsvinner også ethvert <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privatliv</span>»</span> som var beskyttet av denne
friksjonen.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10851936"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9708464"></a><p>
Amazon er naturligvis ikke problemet. Men vi kan begynne å bekymre oss for
biblioteker. Hvis du er en av disse sprø venstrevridde som mener at folk
bør ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten</span>»</span> til å bla igjennom et bibliotek uten at
overvåkning angår deg. Hvis det blir enkelt å samle inn og sortere hvem som
gjør hva i det elektroniske rom, så forsvinner det friksjons-induserte
privatliv fra tidligere tider.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10854768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10856080"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9711296"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9712608"></a><p>
Det er denne virkeligheten som forklarer at mange gjør en innsats for å
definere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privatliv</span>»</span> på Internett. Det er erkjennelsen om at
teknologi kan fjerne det friksjon før ga oss som får mange til å be om lover
-som gjør det friksjonen gjorde.<a href="#ftn.idp10858896" class="footnote" name="idp10858896"><sup class="footnote">[208]</sup></a> Og
+som gjør det friksjonen gjorde.<a href="#ftn.idp9715424" class="footnote" name="idp9715424"><sup class="footnote">[208]</sup></a> Og
uansett om du er for eller imot disse lovene, så er det mønsteret som er det
viktige her. Vi må ta aktive steg for å sikre en slags frihet som var
passivt sikret tidligere. En endring i teknologi tvinger nå de som tror på
privatlivets fred til å gjøre aktive handlinger der hvor privatliv tidligere
var gitt som utgangspunkt.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10863104"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10864320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10865648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10866464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9719632"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9720912"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9722240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9723056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreesoftwareopensourcesoftwarefsoss2"></a><p>
En lignende historie kan fortelles om stiftelsen av fri
programvare-bevegelsen. Da datamaskiner med programvare først ble gjort
kommersielt tilgjengelig var programvaren—både kildekoden og
fri programvare hadde blitt fjernet av en endring i økonomien rundt
databehandling. Og han trodde at hvis han ikke gjorde noe med dette, så
ville friheten til å endre og dele programvare bli fundamentalt svekket.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10877792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10879072"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9734320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9735600"></a><p>
Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
overleve. Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
-produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="idp10881168"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp10882000"></a>
+produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9737696"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9738528"></a>
</p><p>
Stallmans teknikk var å bruke åndsverksloven til å bygge en verden av
programvare som må forbli fri. Programvare lisensiert med GPL fra Free
opphavsrettsbeskyttet kildekode, gjenerobret Stallman en arena der fri
programvare ville overleve. Han beskyttet aktivt det som før hadde vært
passivt garantert.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10885120"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10886448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9741648"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9743040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademicjournals"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxscientificjournals"></a><p>
Til slutt, la oss se på et veldig nytt eksempel som resonerer mer direkte
med historien i denne boken. Dette er overgangen for hvordan akademiske og
vitenskapelige tidsskrifter blir produsert.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10894960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10896064"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlexisandwestlaw"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlawdatabasesofcasereportsin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9751616"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9752720"></a><p>
Etter hvert som teknologien utviklet seg, blir det åpenbart for mange at å
skrive ut tusenvis av kopier av tidsskrifter hver måned og sende dem til
til et bibliotek og lese den, så står Lexis og Westlaw også fritt til å
kreve betaling fra sine brukerne for å gi tilgang til den samme
høyesterettsdommen gjennom deres respektive tjenester.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10899824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9756480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomainlicensesystemforrebuildingof"></a><p>
Det er generelt ingenting galt med dette, og muligheten til å ta betalt for
tilgang selv for allemannseid materiale er helt klart et godt incentiv for
folk til å utvikle nye og nyskapende måter å spre kunnskap. Rettspraksis
å blomstre. Og hvis det ikke er noe galt med å selge det som er
allemannseie, så bør det i prinsippet ikke være noe galt i å selge tilgang
til materiale som ikke er allemannseie.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10904112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10905360"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9760768"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9762016"></a><p>
Men hva hvis den eneste måten å få tilgang til sosiale og vitenskapelige
data var gjennom proprietære tjenester? Hva hvis ingen hadde muligheten til
å bla igjennom disse datasettene uten å betale for et abonnement?
frihetene som papirtidsskrifter ga i offentlige biblioteker begynner å
forsvinne. Dermed, på samme måte som med personvern og programvare, krymper
endringer i teknologien og markedet en frihet som vi tok for gitt tidligere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10910752"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10913232"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9767344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9769824"></a><p>
Denne reduserte friheten har fått mange til å ta aktive steg for å
gjenopprette friheten som har gått tapt. Et eksempel er Det Offentlige
offentlig, elektronisk arkiv og gjort gratis og permanent tilgjengelig.
PLoS selger også trykte utgaver av verkene, men opphavsretten til
papirtidsskriftene fratar ingen retten til å fritt videredistribuere verket.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10916352"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9772944"></a><p>
Dette er en av mange slike anstrengelser for å gjenopprette en frihet som
tidligere ble tatt for gitt, men som nå er truet av endringer i teknologi og
marked. Det er ingen tvil om at dette alternativet konkurrerer med de
eksklusive distribusjonen av innhold. Men konkurranse antas i vår tradisjon
for å være bra—spesielt når det bidrar til å spre kunnskap og
vitenskap.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10917824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6138592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp6139840"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9774480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9776960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9778208"></a></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativecommons"></a><p>
Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
6144656"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9782976"></a><p>
Her kommer Creative Commons inn. Creative Commons er et ikke-kommersielt
selskap etablert i Massachusetts, men med hjemmet sitt ved Stanford
University. Selskapets mål er å bygge *et lag* av
bygge på. Frivillig valg fra individer og skapere vil gjøre dette innholdet
tilgjengelig. Og dette innholdet vi så gjøre det mulig for oss å
gjenopprette allemannseiet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10952544"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9792704"></a><p>
Dette er bare et av mange prosjekter innen Creative Commons. Og Creative
Commons er naturligvis ikke den eneste organisasjonen som bidrar til slike
(<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">innholds-kondusenter,</span>»</span> som advokat Mia Garlick kaller dem)
som hjelper til å bygge allemannseie og demonstrerer med sine egne verk hvor
viktig allemannseiet er for annen kreativitet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10955680"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9795840"></a><p>
Målet er ikke å sloss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">alle rettigheter
reservert</span>»</span>-folkene. Målet er å utfylle dem. Problemene som loven
skaper for oss som kultur, er skapt av sinnsyke og utilsiktede konsekvenser
Førsteutgaven av boken var utsolgt flere måneder tidligere enn utgiveren
hadde forventet. Denne første romanen til en science fiction-forfatter var
en total suksess.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10964304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10965120"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9804464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9805280"></a><p>
Idéen om at gratis innhold kan øke verdien for ikke-gratis innhold ble
bekreftet av et eksperiment gjennomført av en annen forfatter. Peter Wayner,
utsolgt fra forlaget. Han fulgte deretter med på prisen for boken i
bruktbokhandler. Som forutsett, etter hvert som antall nedlastinger steg,
steg også bruktprisen på boken.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10968112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10969424"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10970240"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10971056"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9808272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9809584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9810400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9811216"></a><p>
Dette er eksempler på bruk av Creative Commons for å bedre spre proprietært
innhold. Jeg mener at dette er en nydelig og vanlig bruk av Creative
Commons. Det er andre som bruker Creative Commons-lisenser av andre
Leaphart, manager for rap-gruppen Public Enemy, som ble skapt ved å sample
musikken til andre, har uttalt at han ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillater</span>»</span> Public
Enemy å sample mer, på grunn av at den juridiske kostnaden er så
-høy<a href="#ftn.idp10975024" class="footnote" name="idp10975024"><sup class="footnote">[209]</sup></a>), slipper disse artistene innhold
+høy<a href="#ftn.idp9815184" class="footnote" name="idp9815184"><sup class="footnote">[209]</sup></a>), slipper disse artistene innhold
ut i det kreative miljøet som andre kan bygge videre på, slik at deres form
for kreativitet kan vokse.
</p><p>
til forfatterne, men å gjøre det enklere for forfattere og skapere å utøve
sine rettigheter mer fleksibelt og billigere. Den forskjellen, tror vi, vil
gjøre det mulig for kreativiteten å spre seg lettere.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
10983552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10984960"></a></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9823712"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9825120"></a></div></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Vi vil</strong></span> ikke vinne tilbake en fri kultur
kun ved individuelle handlinger. Det trengs også viktige lovreformer. Vi
har en lang vei å gå før politikerne vil lytte til disse idéene og
på vår fortid. Og dermed tvinger <span class="emphasis"><em>fraværet</em></span> av
formaliteter mange til å være stille der de ellers ville talt.
</p><p>
-Loven burde derfor endre dette kravet<a href="#ftn.idp11000000" class="footnote" name="idp11000000"><sup class="footnote">[210]</sup></a>—men den bør ikke endres ved å gå tilbake til det gamle
+Loven burde derfor endre dette kravet<a href="#ftn.idp9840224" class="footnote" name="idp9840224"><sup class="footnote">[210]</sup></a>—men den bør ikke endres ved å gå tilbake til det gamle
ødelagte systemet. Vi bør kreve formaliteter, men vi bør etablere et system
som vil skape incentivene for å minimere byrden disse formalitetene påfører.
</p><p>
konsekvensen være at opphavsretten er tapt. Konsekvensen kan i stedet være
at enhver da har rett til å bruke dette verket inntil
opphavsrettsinnehaveren klager og demonstrerer at det er hans verk og at han
-ikke gir tillatelse.<a href="#ftn.idp11014752" class="footnote" name="idp11014752"><sup class="footnote">[211]</sup></a> *Meningen til* et
-umerket verk ville dermed være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bruk med mindre noen klager.</span>»</span>
+ikke gir tillatelse.<a href="#ftn.idp9855024" class="footnote" name="idp9855024"><sup class="footnote">[211]</sup></a> Forståelsen av et
+umerket verk ville dermed være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bruk såfremst ingen klager.</span>»</span>
Hvis noen klager, så er forpliktelsen at en må slutte å bruke verket i
ethvert nytt verk fra da av, selv om det ikke er noen straffereaksjon
knyttet til eksisterende bruk. Dette vil skape et sterkt incentiv for
beste måten å sikre at systemet utvikler seg er å begrense
opphavsrettskontorets rolle til å godkjenne standarder for å merke innhold
som har vært utviklet av andre.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11020416"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9860736"></a><p>
For eksempel, hvis en plateindustriforening kommer opp med en metode for å
merke CD-er, så ville den foreslå dette til
opphavsrettskontoret. Opphavsrettskontoret ville så holde en høring, hvor
Dette virket radikalt nok på den tiden. Men etter at vi tapte
<em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em> ble
forslaget enda mer radikalt. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> anbefalte
-et forslag om fjorten års vernetid.<a href="#ftn.idp11031504" class="footnote" name="idp11031504"><sup class="footnote">[212]</sup></a>
+et forslag om fjorten års vernetid.<a href="#ftn.idp9871824" class="footnote" name="idp9871824"><sup class="footnote">[212]</sup></a>
Andre har foreslått å knytte vernetiden til vernetiden for patenter.
</p><p>
Jeg er enig med de som tror vi trenger en radikal endring i opphavsretten
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
håndtere.
-</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11043488"></a><p>
+</p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9883808"></a><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det aktivt:</em></span> En bør være nødt til å fornye
opphavsrettsbeskyttelsen. Spesielt hvis den maksimale varigheten er lang,
ønsker at beskyttelsen fortsetter. Dette trenger ikke være en enorm
belastning, men det er ingen grunn til at denne monopolbeskyttelsen må deles
ut gratis. I snitt tar det nitti minutter for en krigsveteran å søke om
-pensjon.<a href="#ftn.idp11045616" class="footnote" name="idp11045616"><sup class="footnote">[213]</sup></a> Hvis vi belaster veteraner med
+pensjon.<a href="#ftn.idp9885936" class="footnote" name="idp9885936"><sup class="footnote">[213]</sup></a> Hvis vi belaster veteraner med
så mye, så ser jeg ikke hvorfor vi ikke kan kreve at forfattere bruker ti
minutter hvert femtiende år for å fylle ut et enkelt skjema.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det være å be om en mer sjenerøs
opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var president?
-</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11056336"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11057136"></a><p>
+</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9896656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9897456"></a><p>
Som jeg observerte i starten av denne boken, ga originalt eiendomsretten
landeiere retten til å kontrollere sin eiendom fra jorda og helt opp til
himmelen. Så kom flymaskiner, og omfanget av eiendomsretter ble raskt
forfatterens opprinnelige verk. Dermed, hvis jeg skriver en bok, og du
baserer en film på den boken, så har jeg myndighet til å nekte deg å gi ut
den filmen, selv om den filmen ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">min skrift.</span>»</span>
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11062240"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9902560"></a><p>
Kongressen innvilget opphavet til denne retten i 1870, da den utvidet den
eksklusive retten i opphavsretten til å inneholde retten til å kontrollere
-oversettelser og dramatiseringer av et verk.<a href="#ftn.idp11063728" class="footnote" name="idp11063728"><sup class="footnote">[214]</sup></a> Domstolene har utvidet det sakte gjennom lovfortolkninger siden
+oversettelser og dramatiseringer av et verk.<a href="#ftn.idp9904048" class="footnote" name="idp9904048"><sup class="footnote">[214]</sup></a> Domstolene har utvidet det sakte gjennom lovfortolkninger siden
da. Denne utvidelsen har vært kommentert av en av jussverdens beste
dommere, dommer Benjamin Kaplan.
</p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
Vi har blitt så tilvendt til utvidelsen av monopolet til en lang rekke med
såkalte avledede verk at vi ikke lenger ser hvor rart det er å akseptere en
slik utvidelse av opphavsretten mens vi nynner på abrakadabraen rundt idéer
-og uttrykk.<a href="#ftn.idp11066592" class="footnote" name="idp11066592"><sup class="footnote">[215]</sup></a>
+og uttrykk.<a href="#ftn.idp9906912" class="footnote" name="idp9906912"><sup class="footnote">[215]</sup></a>
</p></blockquote></div><p>
Jeg tror det er på tide å anerkjenne at det er flymaskiner på dette området,
og at utvidelser av rettigheter for avledede verk ikke lenger gir mening.
det gir ikke mening at denne rettigheten skal vare like lenge som vernetiden
til den underliggende opphavsretten. Den avledede rettigheten kan være
viktig for å bidra til kreativitet, men den er ikke viktig lenge etter at
-det kreative arbeidet er ferdig. <a class="indexterm" name="idp11070080"></a>
+det kreative arbeidet er ferdig. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9910400"></a>
</p><p>
<span class="emphasis"><em>Omfang:</em></span> På samme måte bør omfanget for avledede verk
snevres inn. Her igjen er det noen tilfeller der avledede rettigheter er
muliggjør. Forestill deg så å helle sirup inn i maskinene. Det er hva
dette generelle kravet om tillatelse gjør med den kreative prosessen. Det
kveler den.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11073792"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9914112"></a><p>
Dette var poenget som Alben kom med da han beskrev hvordan han laget Clint
Eastwood-CD-en. Mens det gir mening å kreve forhandlinger for overskuelige
avledede rettigheter—å lage en film av en bok, eller et noteark av et
I hver av disse tilfellene burde loven markere hvilke bruksområder som er
beskyttet og en bør så kunne anta at andre bruksområder ikke er beskyttet.
Dette er det motsatte av anbefalingen fra min kollega Paul
-Goldstein.<a href="#ftn.idp11076560" class="footnote" name="idp11076560"><sup class="footnote">[216]</sup></a> Hans syn er at loven bør
+Goldstein.<a href="#ftn.idp9916880" class="footnote" name="idp9916880"><sup class="footnote">[216]</sup></a> Hans syn er at loven bør
skrives slik at beskyttelsen utvides når bruksområdene utvides.
</p><p>
Analysen til Goldstein gir absolutt mening hvis kostnadene ved dette
Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
-</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11094624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11095696"></a><p>
+</p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9934880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9935952"></a><p>
Enhver reform av loven må ha disse ulike bruksområdene i fokus. Den må
unngå å belaste type-D-deling selv om den tar sikte på å fjerne type A.
Hvor ivrig loven søker å fjerne type-A-deling bør videre være avhengig av
Internett. Forestill deg Internett så allstedsnærværende som den beste
mobiltelefontjenesten, hvor du er tilkoblet med et enkelt trykk på en
bryter.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11100960"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9941216"></a><p>
I den verden vil det være ekstremt enkelt å koble seg til en tjeneste som
gir deg direkte tilgang til innhold—slik som Internettradio, innhold
som strømmes til brukeren når brukeren ønsker det. Her er dermed det
mobiltelefontjenester i Japan musikk (mot et gebyr) strømmet via
mobiltelefoner (forbedret med plugger for øretelefoner). Japanerne betaler
for dette innholdet selv om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span> innhold er tilgjengelig i
-form av MP3er via nettet.<a href="#ftn.idp11109680" class="footnote" name="idp11109680"><sup class="footnote">[217]</sup></a>
+form av MP3er via nettet.<a href="#ftn.idp9949936" class="footnote" name="idp9949936"><sup class="footnote">[217]</sup></a>
</p><p>
det kan være utilgjengelig fordi verket er glemt. Uansett bør målet til
loven være å muliggjøre tilgang til dette innholdet, ideelt sett på en måte
som gir noe tilbake til kunstneren.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11118720"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11119824"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9958976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9960080"></a><p>
Igjen, her er modellen bruktbokhandelen. Etter at en bok er utsolgt fra
forlaget, så kan den fortsatt være tilgjengelig fra biblioteker og
bruktbokhandler. Men biblioteker og bruktbokhandler betaler ikke
bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
</p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpromisestokeepfisher"></a><p>
Idéen er basert på et forslag lansert av jussprofessor William Fisher ved
-Harvard.<a href="#ftn.idp11133376" class="footnote" name="idp11133376"><sup class="footnote">[218]</sup></a> Fisher foreslår en veldig lur
+Harvard.<a href="#ftn.idp9973584" class="footnote" name="idp9973584"><sup class="footnote">[218]</sup></a> Fisher foreslår en veldig lur
måte rundt den pågående stillingskrigen på Internett. I følge hans plan
ville alt innhold som kan sendes digitalt (1) være markert med et digitalt
vannmerke (ikke bekymre deg over hvor enkelt det ville være å unngå disse
skattesystem, så kan det videreføres. Hvis denne form for beskyttelse ikke
lenger er nødvendig, så kan systemet foldes inn i det gamle systemet for å
kontrollere tilgang.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11156320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11157632"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9996544"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp9997856"></a><p>
Fisher ville steile over idéen om å tillate systemet til å foldes vekk.
Hans mål er ikke bare å sikre at kunstnerne blir betalt, men også å sikre at
på avledet bruk. Et system som ganske enkelt tar imot betaling for tilgang
vil ikke belaste semiotisk demokrati veldig hvis det var få begrensninger på
hva en får lov til å gjøre med selve innholdet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
11115552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11161888"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11162704"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11163520"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp
9955808"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10002112"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10002928"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10003744"></a><p>
Uten tvil vil det være vanskelig å måle nøyaktig <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skaden</span>»</span> på en
industri. Men vanskeligheten i å beregne dette vil veies opp av fordelen
ved å tilrettelegge for nyskapning. Dette bakgrunnssystemet for å kompensere
kostnadene knyttet til CD-produksjon). Apples lansering ble møtt av Real
Networks, som tilbød musikk til kun 79 cent pr. sang. Og uten tvil vil det
bli mye konkurranse rundt å tilby og å selge musikk på nettet.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1
1167216"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11168032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11169152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11169984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11171088"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1
0007440"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10008256"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10009376"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10010208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10011312"></a><p>
Denne konkurransen er allerede på plass mot bakgrunnen med
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span> musikk fra p2p-systemer. Slik selgerne av kabel-TV
har visst i tredve år, og de som selger vann på plaske enda lengre, så er
Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
type-A-delere. Og vårt fokus inntil vi er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
-ødelegge Internett. Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
-artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter *plassen* for nyskapning og
+ødelegge Internett. Vår fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan vi sikrer
+at artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter det stedet for nyskapning og
kreativitet som Internett er.
</p></div><div class="section"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på
en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
synet ødelegge loven.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1
1191984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp11192768"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1
0032160"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idp10032944"></a><p>
Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene. Jeg er angrepet som en
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
vernetid var galskap. Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
-åpenbar.<a href="#ftn.idp11195552" class="footnote" name="idp11195552"><sup class="footnote">[219]</sup></a>
+åpenbar.<a href="#ftn.idp10035728" class="footnote" name="idp10035728"><sup class="footnote">[219]</sup></a>
</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.<a href="#ftn.idp11199152" class="footnote" name="idp11199152"><sup class="footnote">[220]</sup></a> De ser et system som har
+lav.<a href="#ftn.idp10039328" class="footnote" name="idp10039328"><sup class="footnote">[220]</sup></a> De ser et system som har
eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
samfunnsfagundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
</p><p>
Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade. Og det er nettopp det loven
altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1
1209440"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1
0049616"></a><p>
Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
teknologi—filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>»</span> Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt. Før du
kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
-</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp10858896" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10858896" class="para"><sup class="para">[208] </sup></a>
+</p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr style="width:100; text-align:left;margin-left: 0"><div id="ftn.idp9715424" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9715424" class="para"><sup class="para">[208] </sup></a>
der teknologi definerer regler rundt privatliv). Se også Jeffrey Rosen,
<em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (kartlegger avveininger
-mellom teknologi og personvern).</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10975024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10975024" class="para"><sup class="para">[209] </sup></a>
+mellom teknologi og personvern).</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9815184" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9815184" class="para"><sup class="para">[209] </sup></a>
<em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
Culture Wars</em> (2003), produsert av Jed Horovitz, regissert av
Greg Hittelman, en produksjon av Fiat Lucre, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11000000" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11000000" class="para"><sup class="para">[210] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9840224" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9840224" class="para"><sup class="para">[210] </sup></a>
Forslaget jeg fremmer her ville kun gjelde for amerikanske verk. Jeg tror
naturligvis at det ville være en fordel om samme ide ble adoptert også av
-andre land.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11014752" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11014752" class="para"><sup class="para">[211] </sup></a>
+andre land.</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9855024" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9855024" class="para"><sup class="para">[211] </sup></a>
En kompliserende faktor er avledede verk, og den har jeg ikke løst her.
Etter mitt syn skaper loven rundt avledede verk et mer komplisert system enn
det som kan rettferdiggjøres ut fra de marginale incentivene dette gir.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11031504" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11031504" class="para"><sup class="para">[212] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9871824" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9871824" class="para"><sup class="para">[212] </sup></a>
<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
(25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11045616" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11045616" class="para"><sup class="para">[213] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9885936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9885936" class="para"><sup class="para">[213] </sup></a>
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 id="ftn.idp11063728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11063728" class="para"><sup class="para">[214] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9904048" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9904048" class="para"><sup class="para">[214] </sup></a>
Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11066592" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11066592" class="para"><sup class="para">[215] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9906912" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9906912" class="para"><sup class="para">[215] </sup></a>
Ibid., 56.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11076560" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11076560" class="para"><sup class="para">[216] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9916880" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9916880" class="para"><sup class="para">[216] </sup></a>
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="idp10860592"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11109680" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11109680" class="para"><sup class="para">[217] </sup></a>
+187–216. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9717120"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9949936" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9949936" class="para"><sup class="para">[217] </sup></a>
For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>»</span> The J@pan
Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11133376" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11133376" class="para"><sup class="para">[218] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp9973584" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp9973584" class="para"><sup class="para">[218] </sup></a>
<a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
kunstnere proporsjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
enn mindre populære. Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
-forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp11149024"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp11149840"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp11150656"></a>
-<a class="indexterm" name="idp11151488"></a>
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11195552" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11195552" class="para"><sup class="para">[219] </sup></a>
+forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="idp9989248"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="idp9990064"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9990880"></a>
+<a class="indexterm" name="idp9991712"></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10035728" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10035728" class="para"><sup class="para">[219] </sup></a>
Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville
B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48
(2001): 1057, 1069–70.
-</p></div><div id="ftn.idp11199152" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp11199152" class="para"><sup class="para">[220] </sup></a>
+</p></div><div id="ftn.idp10039328" class="footnote"><p><a href="#idp10039328" class="para"><sup class="para">[220] </sup></a>
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="idp11197232"></a>
+<em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174–76. <a class="indexterm" name="idp10037408"></a>
</p></div></div></div><div class="chapter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Notater</h1></div></div></div><p>
I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven. Og som alle
som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
-</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1
1221296"></a><p>
+</p><a class="indexterm" name="idp1
0061584"></a><p>
Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
hatt rett. Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
-</p></div><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp11231504"></a>Register</h1></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symboler</h3><dl><dt>11. september 2001, terrorangrep den, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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: Konsentrering</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>Afrika, medisinering for HIV-pasienter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>AIDS-medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Alice i Eventyrland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>alkoholforbud, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>allemannseie (public domain)</dt><dd><dl><dt>balanse for innhold fra USA i, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>bibliotek av verk avledet fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>definert, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>den engelske juridiske etableringen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>e-bok-begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>fremtidige patenter og fremtidige opphavsrettigheter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>lisens-systemet for å gjenoppbygging av, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>offentlige prosjekter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>tilgangsavgifter for materiale i, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>tradisjonell frist for konvertering til, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Amerikansk forening for juss-biblioteker, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>åndsverkslov</dt><dd><dl><dt>engelsk, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>europeisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>forbryterstraff for krenkelse av, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>frihet til nyskaping balansert med rimelig kompensasjon i, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>historie for Amerikansk, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>japansk, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>kopier som kjernetema for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>kreativitet hindret av, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte lisenser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>nyskapning hemmet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om musikkinnspillinger, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>omfang for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>på gjenpublisering vs. endring av opprinnelig verk, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>registreringskrav for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>rimelig bruk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>som beskyttelse for skapere, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>som ex post modalitetsregulering, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>teknologi som automatisk håndhever av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>utviklingen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>vernetidesutvidelser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>animasjonsfilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Ankedomstol</dt><dd><dl><dt>Niende krets, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>antiretrovirale legemiddel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internettarkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>offentliggjøringsrettigheter for bilder av, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>retrospektive samlinger om, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>automatiske piano, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>aviser</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiver over, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>avledede verk</dt><dd><dl><dt>historisk endring i opphavsrettslig dekning av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>piratvirksomhet vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>rimelig bruk vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>teknologisk utvikling og, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlinvedtaket (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>beskyttelse av kunstnere vs. forretningsinteresser, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>bevisst krenkelse, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>biblioteker</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiveringsfunksjonen til, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>av allemannseid litteratur, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>personvernrettigheter i bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>tidsskrifter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>biler, MP3-lydsystem i, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>biomedisinsk forskning, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>blogger (Web-logger), <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>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>bruktsalg av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Engelsk åndsverkslov utviklet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>gratis online-utgivelser av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</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>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tre typer brukmåter for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>utsolgt fra forlaget, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bokselgere, Engelske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>boter, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Britiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</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">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>CARP (Panel for opphavsrettsroyaltyvoldgift), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>CD-er</dt><dd><dl><dt>mikseteknologi og, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettsmerking av, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Merking</a></dt><dt>preferanse data på, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>priser på, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>salgsnivå for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>utenlands piratvirksomhet mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>CD-ROMer, filmklipp brukt i, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</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-kvinner i fred, <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: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></dt><dt>copyleft-lisenser, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></dt><dt>coverlåter, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</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>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</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>demokrati</dt><dd><dl><dt>i teknologier for å uttrykke seg, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>offentlig diskusjon i, <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></dl></dd><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>digitale kamera, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>dokumentarfilm, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Donaldson mot beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>doujinshi-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Dukk og skjul deg-film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-bøker, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>føydalsystem for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>uhåndgripeligheten til, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp8079792">«Eiendom»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>England, åndsverkslov utviklet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>epost, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</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: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>fantasifoster / chimera, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>farmasøytiske patenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>om FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmer</dt><dd><dl><dt>animerte, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>arkiv for, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>flere opphavsrettigheter knyttet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>rimelig bruk av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmindustri</dt><dd><dl><dt>filmtrailer-reklamene til, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>luksuskinoer mot video-piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>fjernkontroll for kanalbytte, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>flyktige filmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formaliteter, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>Forsikring mot feil og utelatelser, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Første grunnlovstillegg, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>førstesalgs-doktrinen, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox (filmselskap), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>føydalsystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fremskritts-bestemmelsen, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>fri kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt>avledede verk basert på, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>den engelske juridiske etableringen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>fire modaliteter for begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>restureringsinnsatser på tidligere fasetter av, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt> tillatelseskultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>fri programvare/åpen kildekode-programvare (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>frie marked, teknologiske endringer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</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><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>generiske legemidler, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Globalt posisjoneringssystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grimm-eventyr, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Grunnloven i USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>Første tillegg til, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Fremskritts-bestemmelsen i, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Handels-bestemmelsen i, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>om kreativ eiendom, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettsformål som er etablert i, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>strukturelle kontrollmekanismer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hack, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Handelsdepartementet, USAs, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Handikappede amerikanere-loven (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>håndvåpen, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>hastighet, begrensning av, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Helan og Halvan-filmene, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>historien, arkiv over, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS-behandlinger, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Høyesterett, USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>om interesseavveininger i opphavsrettslovgivning, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>om luftrom mot landrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>om TV-reklame-bannlysning, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Overhuset, det britiske mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tilgang til domstolavgjørelser fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>immaterielle rettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>av legemiddelpatenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>internasjonal organisasjon for saker om, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>informasjonskapsler, Internett, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>etablert industri mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insektmiddel, miljøkonsekvensene fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>internasjonal lov, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogger om, <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>bøker på, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>copyright applicability altered by technology of, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt> effektiv innholdsdistribusjon på, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>node-generert rangeringer av, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>nyhetsinnslag på, <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>offentlig diskusjon gjennomført på, <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>opphavsrettslig regulatorisk balanse mistet med, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>opprinnelige frie egenskaper ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></dt><dt>personvernbeskyttelse på, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>radio på, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>søkemotorer brukt på, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>utviklingen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Exporer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Internettarkivet, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanske tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp8079792">«Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>journalistikk, <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>juridisk system, advokatkostnader i, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>juridiske realist-bevegelsen, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>jurysystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Jusstudier, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <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></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>kabel-TV, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>kamerateknologi, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>kassettopptak, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Kodak-kamera, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>komponistens rettigheter versus produsentenes rettigheter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>komponister, opphavsrettsbeskyttelser for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Kongress-biblioteket, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Kongressen i USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>i grunnlovens Fremskritts-bestemmelse, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>konstitusjonelle makt til, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>om åndsverkslover, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om innspillingenindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettens vernetid utvidet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>på videospiller-teknologi, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>kreativ eiendel</dt><dd><dl><dt>andre eiendomsretter vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien om, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>konstitusjonell tradisjon med, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>sedvanerettsbeskyttelse av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kreativitet</dt><dd><dl><dt>juridiske begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>ved å omforme tidligere verk, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>krigsveteranpensjoner, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt>kommersiell vs. ikke-kommersiell, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kunnskap, frihet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landbruk, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>landbrukspatenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>legemidler</dt><dd><dl><dt>farmasøytisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>legers feilbehandlingsanklager mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred-saken involvering til, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>i internasjonal debatt om immateriell eiendom, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte lisenser, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>loven</dt><dd><dl><dt>databaser med saksrapporter om, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>føderal vs. nasjonal, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>sedvane vs. positiv, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>som begrensningsmodalitet, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>makt, konsentrering av, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marihuana-politikkprosjektet, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>markedsbeskrankninger, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>markedskonkurranse, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Marx-brødrene, <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: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogg-press på, <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>eierskapskonsentrering i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>kommersielle imperativer av, <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></dl></dd><dt>mediekompetanse, <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>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>internasjonal piratkopiering av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>konkurransemessige strategier for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>myndighetssak mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>nettverksfilsystemet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>om fri programvare, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Windows-operativsystemet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>WIPO-møte motarbeidet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Mikke Mus, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>miljøbevegelse, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Millar mot taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>monopol, opphavsrett som, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>MP3-er, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>MP3-spillere, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>musikkpublisering, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>antall registreringer på, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>erstatning for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>venturekapital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville sangforfatterforening, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Nasjonal skribentunion, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Nei til Elektronisk Tyveri(NET)-loven (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NET(Nei til Elektronisk Tyveri)-loven (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Nick og Norm anti-narkotikakampanjen, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Niende ankekrets, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>noteark, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>nyhetsdekning, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Offentlige Vitenskapsbiblioteket, det (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>opphavsrett</dt><dd><dl><dt>bruksbegrensninger knyttet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>fire regulatoriske modaliteter til, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>for evig, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>fornyelsesevnen til, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>konstitusjonellt formål med, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>merking av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>omfang for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>som smal monopolrett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>til naturlige forfattere vs. selskaper, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>varighet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Opphavsrettslov (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>opplysningstiden, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>orginalisme, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Ørneforumet, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Overhuset, det britiske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallellimport, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>patenter</dt><dd><dl><dt>fremtidige patenter og fremtidige opphavsrettigheter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>i allemannseie (public domain), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>om legemidler, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer(p2p)-fildeling</dt><dd><dl><dt>effektiviteten til, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>forbryterstraff for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>regulatorisk balanse tapt i, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>personvernrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>piratvirksomhet</dt><dd><dl><dt>avledede verk vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>i Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>i utviklingen av innholdsindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>plateindustrien</dt><dd><dl><dt>artisthonorar i, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Internettradio hemmet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte lisenssystemer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettbeskyttelser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>radiokringkasting og, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>søksmål om opphavsrettbrudd fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>PLoS (Offentlige Vitenskapsbiblioteket, det), <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, (Aristoteles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>politisk diskusjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornografi, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positiv rett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>pressemeldinger fra det hvite hus, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>proprietær kode, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM-spektrum for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>musikkinnspillinger spillt på, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>rap-musikk, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>lobbymakten til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om Internettradio-avgifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>skremselstaktikker til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>stevning i sak om om krenkelse av opphavsrett tatt ut av, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulering</dt><dd><dl><dt>fire modaliteter for, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>økte straffer ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>som beskyttelse av det etablerte, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>reklameinnslag, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>datanettverksøkemotor ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>rimelig bruk, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>i dokumentarfilm, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Internett-byrder på, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>juridisk skremselstaktikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Romeo og Julie (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>sedvanerett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>selskaper</dt><dd><dl><dt>i farmasøytisk industri, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettvernetid for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Senatet i USA, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Skotske utgivere, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>søkemotorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>søksmål om krenkelse av opphavsrett</dt><dd><dl><dt>bevisst krenkelse-kjennelser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>de enkelte saksøkte skremt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>distribusjon-teknologi mål for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>i plateindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>kommersiell kreativitet som hovedformål for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader for, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>mot student-fildeling, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>overdrevne påstander om, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sonny Bono utvidelse av opphavsrettsvernetid-loven (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Høyesteretts utfordring av, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Sør-Afrika, Republikken, farmasøytiske import til, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolis (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Storbritannia</dt><dd><dl><dt>historie av opphavsrettslovgivning i, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>offentlig kreativt arkiv i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>surfing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>talefrihet</dt><dd><dl><dt>konstitusjonell garanti for, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>tegneserier, japanske, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>teknologi</dt><dd><dl><dt>etablert industri truet av endringer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>opphavsretthensikten endret av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettshåndheving kontrollert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>televisjon</dt><dd><dl><dt>kabel-TV mot kringkasting, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>kontrovers unngått av, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>markedsføring på, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>tillatelser</dt><dd><dl><dt>fotografering som ikke trenger, <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></dl></dd><dt>tillatelseskultur</dt><dd><dl><dt> fri kultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>TV-arkivet, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tvangslisens, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Tysk åndsverkslov, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>universitetdatanettverk, p2p-fildeling på, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>USAs handelrepresentant (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>utdanning</dt><dd><dl><dt>fikling som metode for, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>i mediekompetanse, <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></dl></dd><dt>uttrykke seg, teknologier for å</dt><dd><dl><dt>demokratisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>mediekompetanse og, <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></dl></dd><dt>utviklingsland, utenlandske patentkostnader i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> om kreative eiendomsrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>valg, <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>valgforsamling, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>venturekapitalister, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Verdens opphavsrettsorganisasjon (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Verdenstoppmøtet om informasjonssamfunnet (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>vitenskapelige tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Web-logger (blogger), <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>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6242032">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt></dl></div></div></div><div class="colophon"><h1 class="title"><a name="idp11231760"></a>Kolofon</h1><p>
-Fri kultur : Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og rettsvesenet til
-å begrense kulturen og kontrollere kreativiteten / Lawrence Lessig.
+</p></div><div class="index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="idp10071792"></a>Register</h1></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symboler</h3><dl><dt>11. september 2001, terrorangrep den, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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: Konsentrering</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>Afrika, medisinering for HIV-pasienter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>AIDS-medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Alice i Eventyrland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>alkoholforbud, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>allemannseie (public domain)</dt><dd><dl><dt>balanse for innhold fra USA i, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>bibliotek av verk avledet fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>definert, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>den engelske juridiske etableringen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>e-bok-begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>fremtidige patenter og fremtidige opphavsrettigheter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>lisens-systemet for å gjenoppbygging av, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>offentlige prosjekter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>tilgangsavgifter for materiale i, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>tradisjonell frist for konvertering til, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Amerikansk forening for juss-biblioteker, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>åndsverkslov</dt><dd><dl><dt>engelsk, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>europeisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>forbryterstraff for krenkelse av, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>frihet til nyskaping balansert med rimelig kompensasjon i, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>historie for Amerikansk, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>japansk, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>kopier som kjernetema for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>kreativitet hindret av, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte lisenser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>nyskapning hemmet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om musikkinnspillinger, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>omfang for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>på gjenpublisering vs. endring av opprinnelig verk, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>registreringskrav for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>rimelig bruk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>som beskyttelse for skapere, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>som ex post modalitetsregulering, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>teknologi som automatisk håndhever av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>utviklingen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>vernetidesutvidelser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>animasjonsfilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Ankedomstol</dt><dd><dl><dt>Niende krets, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>antiretrovirale legemiddel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internettarkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>offentliggjøringsrettigheter for bilder av, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>retrospektive samlinger om, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>AT&T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>automatiske piano, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>aviser</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiver over, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>avledede verk</dt><dd><dl><dt>historisk endring i opphavsrettslig dekning av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>piratvirksomhet vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>rimelig bruk vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>teknologisk utvikling og, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barnes & Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlinvedtaket (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>beskyttelse av kunstnere vs. forretningsinteresser, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>bevisst krenkelse, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>biblioteker</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiveringsfunksjonen til, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>av allemannseid litteratur, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>personvernrettigheter i bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>tidsskrifter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>biler, MP3-lydsystem i, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>biomedisinsk forskning, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>blogger (Web-logger), <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>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>bruktsalg av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Engelsk åndsverkslov utviklet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>gratis online-utgivelser av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</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>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tre typer brukmåter for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>utsolgt fra forlaget, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bokselgere, Engelske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>boter, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Britiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</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>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</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">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>CARP (Panel for opphavsrettsroyaltyvoldgift), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>CD-er</dt><dd><dl><dt>mikseteknologi og, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettsmerking av, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Merking</a></dt><dt>preferanse data på, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>priser på, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>salgsnivå for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>utenlands piratvirksomhet mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>CD-ROMer, filmklipp brukt i, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</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-kvinner i fred, <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: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Conger, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></dt><dt>copyleft-lisenser, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></dt><dt>coverlåter, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</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>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Data General, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</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>demokrati</dt><dd><dl><dt>i teknologier for å uttrykke seg, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>offentlig diskusjon i, <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></dl></dd><dt>Digital Copyright (Litman), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>digitale kamera, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Doctorow, Cory, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>dokumentarfilm, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Donaldson mot beckett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Donaldson, Alexander, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>doujinshi-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (Doctorow), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Dukk og skjul deg-film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-bøker, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>føydalsystem for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>uhåndgripeligheten til, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6938704">«Eiendom»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Eldred, Eric, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>Else, Jon, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>England, åndsverkslov utviklet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>epost, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</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: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>fantasifoster / chimera, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>farmasøytiske patenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>om FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmer</dt><dd><dl><dt>animerte, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>arkiv for, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>flere opphavsrettigheter knyttet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>rimelig bruk av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmindustri</dt><dd><dl><dt>filmtrailer-reklamene til, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>luksuskinoer mot video-piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>fjernkontroll for kanalbytte, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>flyktige filmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>formaliteter, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>Forsikring mot feil og utelatelser, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Første grunnlovstillegg, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>førstesalgs-doktrinen, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox (filmselskap), <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>føydalsystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fremskritts-bestemmelsen, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>fri kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt>avledede verk basert på, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>den engelske juridiske etableringen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>fire modaliteter for begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>restureringsinnsatser på tidligere fasetter av, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt> tillatelseskultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>fri programvare/åpen kildekode-programvare (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>frie marked, teknologiske endringer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</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><dt>Frost, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Future of Ideas, The (Lessig), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>generiske legemidler, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Globalt posisjoneringssystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Google, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grimm-eventyr, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Groening, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Grunnloven i USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>Første tillegg til, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Fremskritts-bestemmelsen i, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Handels-bestemmelsen i, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>om kreativ eiendom, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettsformål som er etablert i, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>strukturelle kontrollmekanismer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hack, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Handelsdepartementet, USAs, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Handikappede amerikanere-loven (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>håndvåpen, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>hastighet, begrensning av, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Helan og Halvan-filmene, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>historien, arkiv over, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS-behandlinger, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Høyesterett, USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>om interesseavveininger i opphavsrettslovgivning, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>om luftrom mot landrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>om TV-reklame-bannlysning, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Overhuset, det britiske mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tilgang til domstolavgjørelser fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>immaterielle rettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>av legemiddelpatenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>internasjonal organisasjon for saker om, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>informasjonskapsler, Internett, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>etablert industri mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>insektmiddel, miljøkonsekvensene fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>internasjonal lov, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>internet</dt><dd><dl><dt>anvendelighet for opphavsrett endret av teknoligien til, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>blogger om, <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>bøker på, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt> effektiv innholdsdistribusjon på, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>node-generert rangeringer av, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>nyhetsinnslag på, <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>offentlig diskusjon gjennomført på, <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>opphavsrettslig regulatorisk balanse mistet med, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>opprinnelige frie egenskaper ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></dt><dt>personvernbeskyttelse på, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>radio på, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>søkemotorer brukt på, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>utviklingen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Exporer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Internettarkivet, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanske tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jefferson, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp6938704">«Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jordan, Jesse, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>journalistikk, <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>juridisk system, advokatkostnader i, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>juridiske realist-bevegelsen, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>jurysystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Jusstudier, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt><dt>Just Think!, <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></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>kabel-TV, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>kamerateknologi, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>kassettopptak, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Kazaa, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Kodak-kamera, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>komponistens rettigheter versus produsentenes rettigheter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>komponister, opphavsrettsbeskyttelser for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Kongress-biblioteket, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Kongressen i USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>i grunnlovens Fremskritts-bestemmelse, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>konstitusjonelle makt til, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>om åndsverkslover, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om innspillingenindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettens vernetid utvidet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>på videospiller-teknologi, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>kreativ eiendel</dt><dd><dl><dt>andre eiendomsretter vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien om, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>konstitusjonell tradisjon med, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>sedvanerettsbeskyttelse av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kreativitet</dt><dd><dl><dt>juridiske begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>ved å omforme tidligere verk, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>krigsveteranpensjoner, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt>kommersiell vs. ikke-kommersiell, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kunnskap, frihet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landbruk, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>landbrukspatenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>legemidler</dt><dd><dl><dt>farmasøytisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>legers feilbehandlingsanklager mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>Lessig, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Eldred-saken involvering til, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>i internasjonal debatt om immateriell eiendom, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Lexis and Westlaw, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte lisenser, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>loven</dt><dd><dl><dt>databaser med saksrapporter om, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>føderal vs. nasjonal, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>sedvane vs. positiv, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>som begrensningsmodalitet, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</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><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>makt, konsentrering av, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marihuana-politikkprosjektet, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>markedsbeskrankninger, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>markedskonkurranse, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Marx-brødrene, <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: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>blogg-press på, <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>eierskapskonsentrering i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>kommersielle imperativer av, <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></dl></dd><dt>mediekompetanse, <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>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>internasjonal piratkopiering av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>konkurransemessige strategier for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>myndighetssak mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>nettverksfilsystemet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>om fri programvare, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Windows-operativsystemet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>WIPO-møte motarbeidet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Mikke Mus, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>miljøbevegelse, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Millar mot taylor, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>monopol, opphavsrett som, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>MP3-er, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>MP3-spillere, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>MP3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>musikkpublisering, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>my.mp3.com, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>antall registreringer på, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>erstatning for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>venturekapital for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nashville sangforfatterforening, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Nasjonal skribentunion, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Nei til Elektronisk Tyveri(NET)-loven (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NET(Nei til Elektronisk Tyveri)-loven (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>New Hampshire (Frost), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Nick og Norm anti-narkotikakampanjen, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Niende ankekrets, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>noteark, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>nyhetsdekning, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Offentlige Vitenskapsbiblioteket, det (PLoS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>opphavsrett</dt><dd><dl><dt>bruksbegrensninger knyttet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>fire regulatoriske modaliteter til, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>for evig, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>fornyelsesevnen til, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>konstitusjonellt formål med, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>merking av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>omfang for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>som smal monopolrett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>til naturlige forfattere vs. selskaper, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>varighet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Opphavsrettslov (1790), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>opplysningstiden, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>orginalisme, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Ørneforumet, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Overhuset, det britiske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>parallellimport, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>patenter</dt><dd><dl><dt>fremtidige patenter og fremtidige opphavsrettigheter i, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>i allemannseie (public domain), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>om legemidler, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer(p2p)-fildeling</dt><dd><dl><dt>effektiviteten til, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>forbryterstraff for, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>regulatorisk balanse tapt i, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>personvernrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>piratvirksomhet</dt><dd><dl><dt>avledede verk vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>i Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>i utviklingen av innholdsindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>plateindustrien</dt><dd><dl><dt>artisthonorar i, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Internettradio hemmet av, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte lisenssystemer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettbeskyttelser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>radiokringkasting og, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>søksmål om opphavsrettbrudd fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>PLoS (Offentlige Vitenskapsbiblioteket, det), <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, (Aristoteles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>politisk diskusjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Porgy and Bess, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>pornografi, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>positiv rett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>pressemeldinger fra det hvite hus, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>proprietær kode, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM-spektrum for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>musikkinnspillinger spillt på, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>rap-musikk, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)</dt><dd><dl><dt>lobbymakten til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>om Internettradio-avgifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>skremselstaktikker til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>stevning i sak om om krenkelse av opphavsrett tatt ut av, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>regulering</dt><dd><dl><dt>fire modaliteter for, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>økte straffer ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>som beskyttelse av det etablerte, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>reklameinnslag, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>datanettverksøkemotor ved, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>rimelig bruk, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>i dokumentarfilm, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Internett-byrder på, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>juridisk skremselstaktikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Romeo og Julie (Shakespeare), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Scarlet Letter, The (Hawthorne), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>sedvanerett, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>selskaper</dt><dd><dl><dt>i farmasøytisk industri, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettvernetid for, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Senatet i USA, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Spring (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Simpsons, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Skotske utgivere, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>søkemotorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>søksmål om krenkelse av opphavsrett</dt><dd><dl><dt>bevisst krenkelse-kjennelser i, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>de enkelte saksøkte skremt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>distribusjon-teknologi mål for, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>i plateindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>kommersiell kreativitet som hovedformål for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader for, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>mot student-fildeling, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>overdrevne påstander om, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sonny Bono utvidelse av opphavsrettsvernetid-loven (CTEA) (1998), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Høyesteretts utfordring av, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Sør-Afrika, Republikken, farmasøytiske import til, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Anne (1710), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolis (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Storbritannia</dt><dd><dl><dt>historie av opphavsrettslovgivning i, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>offentlig kreativt arkiv i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>surfing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>talefrihet</dt><dd><dl><dt>konstitusjonell garanti for, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>tegneserier, japanske, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>teknologi</dt><dd><dl><dt>etablert industri truet av endringer i, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>opphavsretthensikten endret av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettshåndheving kontrollert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>televisjon</dt><dd><dl><dt>kabel-TV mot kringkasting, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>kontrovers unngått av, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>markedsføring på, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Thomson, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>tillatelser</dt><dd><dl><dt>fotografering som ikke trenger, <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></dl></dd><dt>tillatelseskultur</dt><dd><dl><dt> fri kultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tonson, Jacob, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>TV-arkivet, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tvangslisens, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Tysk åndsverkslov, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>universitetdatanettverk, p2p-fildeling på, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>USAs handelrepresentant (USTR), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>utdanning</dt><dd><dl><dt>fikling som metode for, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>i mediekompetanse, <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></dl></dd><dt>uttrykke seg, teknologier for å</dt><dd><dl><dt>demokratisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>mediekompetanse og, <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></dl></dd><dt>utviklingsland, utenlandske patentkostnader i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</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>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> om kreative eiendomsrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>valg, <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>valgforsamling, <a class="indexterm" href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></dt><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>venturekapitalister, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>Verdens opphavsrettsorganisasjon (WIPO), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Verdenstoppmøtet om informasjonssamfunnet (WSIS), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Video Pipeline, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken—igjen</a></dt><dt>vitenskapelige tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Legger bånd på oppfinnere</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Skader borgere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Wagner, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Web-logger (blogger), <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>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster / Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>WorldCom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Legger bånd på skaperne</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrering</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>-<a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#idp5892048">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Omfang</a></dt></dl></div></div></div><div class="colophon"><h1 class="title"><a name="idp10072048"></a>Kolofon</h1><p>
+Frigjør kulturen: Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og
+rettsvesenet til å begrense kulturen og kontrollere kreativiteten / Lawrence
+Lessig.
</p><p>
Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig. Noen rettigheter forbeholdt.
</p><p>
-Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri kultur</em> er lisensiert under en
-Creative Commons-lisens. Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
-utnyttelse av verket dersom opphavsmannen er navngitt. For mer informasjon
-
om lisensen besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
+Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Frigjør Kulturen</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, 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><p>
-Denne digitale boken ble publisert av Petter Reinholdtsen i 2015. Den
-opprinnelige innbundede boka ble publisert i 2004 av The Penguin Press.
+Denne digitale boken ble publisert av Petter Reinholdtsen i 2015. Den
+opprinnelige innbundede boken ble publisert i 2004 av The Penguin Press.
</p><p>
Utdrag fra redaktørartikkel <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 16. januar
github-prosjekt</a>.
</p><p>
Boken er oversatt til bokmål på dugnad av Petter Reinholdtsen med hjelp fra
-Anders Hagen Jarmund og Kirill Miazine. Takk til Ralph Amissah for hjelp med
-registeroppføringene samt Morten Sickel og Alexander Alemayhu for hjelp med
-bildene. Rapporter feil i oversettelsen via GitHub.
+Anders Hagen Jarmund, Kirill Miazine og Odd Kleiva. Takk til Ralph Amissah
+for hjelp med registeroppføringene samt Morten Sickel og Alexander Alemayhu
+for hjelp med bildene. Rapporter feil i oversettelsen via GitHub.
</p><p>
Inkluderer register.
</p><p>
Klassifiseringer: (Dewey) 306.4 306.40973 306.46 341.7582 343.7309/9, (UDK)
-347.78 (US Lib. of Congress) KF2979.L47 2004
+347.78 (US Lib. of Congress) KF2979.L47 2004 (ACM CRCS) K.4.1
</p><p>
</p><div class="informaltable"><a name="isbn"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">ISBN</th><th align="left">Format / MIME-type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">text/plain</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">application/pdf</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">text/html</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">application/epub+zip</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">application/docbook+xml</td></tr><tr><td align="left">978-82-92812-XX-Y</td><td align="left">application/x-mobipocket-ebook</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
</p></div></div></body></html>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / commitdiff