<para>
What you want is to give these students ways of constructing
meaning. If all you give them is text, they're not going to do it.
-Because they can't. You know, you've got Johnny who can look at
-a video, he can play a video game, he can do graffiti all over your
+Because they can't. You know, you've got Johnny who can look at a
+video, he can play a video game, he can do graffiti all over your
walls, he can take your car apart, and he can do all sorts of other
-things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny comes to school
-and you say, "Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you can do
- matters."
-Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss you or
-he [can] dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to
-dismiss you. [But i]nstead, if you say, "Well, with all these things
-that you can do, let's talk about this issue. Play for me music that
-you think reflects that, or show me images that you think reflect
-that, or draw for me something that reflects that." Not by giving
-a kid a video camera and . . . saying, "Let's go have fun with the
-video camera and make a little movie." But instead, really help
-you take these elements that you understand, that are your
- language,
-and construct meaning about the topic. . . .
+things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny comes to school and
+you say, "Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you can do matters."
+Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss you or he [can]
+dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to dismiss
+you. [But i]nstead, if you say, "Well, with all these things that you
+can do, let's talk about this issue. Play for me music that you think
+reflects that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw
+for me something that reflects that." Not by giving a kid a video
+camera and . . . saying, "Let's go have fun with the video camera and
+make a little movie." But instead, really help you take these elements
+that you understand, that are your language, and construct meaning
+about the topic. . . .
</para>
<para>
That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of
</para>
</blockquote>
<para>
-When two planes 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 news. Every moment of just about every day for
-that week, and for weeks after, television in particular, and media
- generally,
-retold the story of the events we had just witnessed. The telling was
-a retelling, because we had seen the events that were described. The
- genius
-of this awful act of terrorism was that the delayed second attack was
-perfectly timed to assure that the whole world would be watching.
+When two planes 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 news. Every moment of just about every day for
+that week, and for weeks after, television in particular, and media
+generally, retold the story of the events we had just witnessed. The
+telling was a retelling, because we had seen the events that were
+described. The genius of this awful act of terrorism was that the
+delayed second attack was perfectly timed to assure that the whole
+world would be watching.
</para>
<para>
These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music
-scored for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across the
-screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was "balance," and
-seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have
- increasingly
-come to expect it, "news as entertainment," even if the
- entertainment
-is tragedy.
+scored for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across
+the screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was "balance,"
+and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have
+increasingly come to expect it, "news as entertainment," even if the
+entertainment is tragedy.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>CBS</primary></indexterm>
<para>
-But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of
- September
+But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of September
11," those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different
production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same
events. Yet these Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some
people constructed photo pages that captured images from around the
world and presented them as slide shows with text. Some offered open
letters. There were sound recordings. There was anger and frustration.
-There were attempts to provide context. There was, in short, an
- extraordinary
-worldwide barn raising, in the sense Mike Godwin uses
-the term in his book Cyber Rights, around a news event that had
- captured
-the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there
+There were attempts to provide context. There was, in short, an
+extraordinary worldwide barn raising, in the sense Mike Godwin uses
+the term in his book Cyber Rights, around a news event that had
+captured the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there
was also the Internet.
</para>
<para>
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
- Kodak,
-the Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a movie
-
+instead to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a
+Kodak, the Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a
+movie
<!-- PAGE BREAK 54 -->
by a student on the "Just Think!" bus, the visual images could be mixed
with sound or text.
</para>
<para>
-But unlike any technology for simply capturing images, the
- Internet
+But unlike any technology for simply capturing images, the Internet
allows these creations to be shared with an extraordinary number of
-people, practically instantaneously. This is something new in our
- tradition—not
-just that culture can be captured mechanically, 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.
+people, practically instantaneously. This is something new in our
+tradition—not just that culture can be captured mechanically,
+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.
</para>
<para>
September 11 was not an aberration. It was a beginning. Around
Springer, available anywhere in the world.
</para>
<para>
-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 public
-discourse. Discussing matters of public import, criticizing others who
-are mistaken in their views, criticizing politicians about the decisions
-they make, offering solutions to problems we all see: blogs create the
-sense of a virtual public meeting, but one in which we don't all hope to
-be there at the same time and in which conversations are not
- necessarily
-linked. The best of the blog entries are relatively short; they point
-directly to words used by others, criticizing with or adding to them.
-They are arguably the most important form of unchoreographed
- public
-discourse that we have.
-</para>
-<para>
-That's a strong statement. Yet it says as much about our democracy
-as it does about blogs. This is the part of America that is most difficult
-for those of us who love America to accept: Our democracy has
- atrophied.
-Of course we have elections, and most of the time the courts
- allow
-those elections to count. A relatively small number of people vote
+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
+public discourse. Discussing matters of public import, criticizing
+others who are mistaken in their views, criticizing politicians about
+the decisions they make, offering solutions to problems we all see:
+blogs create the sense of a virtual public meeting, but one in which
+we don't all hope to be there at the same time and in which
+conversations are not necessarily linked. The best of the blog entries
+are relatively short; they point directly to words used by others,
+criticizing with or adding to them. They are arguably the most
+important form of unchoreographed public discourse that we have.
+</para>
+<para>
+That's a strong statement. Yet it says as much about our democracy as
+it does about blogs. This is the part of America that is most
+difficult for those of us who love America to accept: Our democracy
+has atrophied. Of course we have elections, and most of the time the
+courts allow those elections to count. A relatively small number of
+people vote
<!-- PAGE BREAK 55 -->
-in those elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally
- professionalized
-and routinized. Most of us think this is democracy.
+in those elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally
+professionalized and routinized. Most of us think this is democracy.
</para>
<para>
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
- discourse.
-This was the idea that captured the imagination of Alexis de
-Tocqueville, the nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the
+elections. In our tradition, it also means control through reasoned
+discourse. This was the idea that captured the imagination of Alexis
+de Tocqueville, the nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the
most important account of early "Democracy in America." It wasn't
-popular elections that fascinated him—it was the jury, an institution
-that gave ordinary people the right to choose life or death for other
- citizens.
-And most fascinating for him was that the jury didn't just vote
-about the outcome they would impose. They deliberated. Members
- argued
-about the "right" result; they tried to persuade each other of the
-"right" result, and in criminal cases at least, they had to agree upon a
-unanimous result for the process to come to an end.<footnote><para>
+popular elections that fascinated him—it was the jury, an
+institution that gave ordinary people the right to choose life or
+death for other citizens. And most fascinating for him was that the
+jury didn't just vote about the outcome they would impose. They
+deliberated. Members argued about the "right" result; they tried to
+persuade each other of the "right" result, and in criminal cases at
+least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to
+come to an end.<footnote><para>
<!-- f15 -->
See, for example, Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, bk. 1, trans.
Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books, 2000), ch. 16.
permissions that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
</para>
<figure id="fig-1612">
-<title></title>
+<title>List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</title>
<graphic fileref="images/1612.png"></graphic>
</figure>
<para>
contrary, I am beginning to change my mind.
</para>
<para>
-Here's a representative story that begins to suggest how this
- integration
-may matter.
+Here's a representative story that begins to suggest how this
+integration may matter.
</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Lear, Norman</primary></indexterm>
<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
<para>
In 1969, Norman Lear created a pilot for All in the Family. He took
<sect2 id="constrain">
<title>Constraining Creators</title>
<para>
-In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
-These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
-content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have
-done since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But
-capturing and sharing through digital technology is different. The
- fidelity
-and power are different. You could send an e-mail telling
- someone
-about a joke you saw on Comedy Central, or you could send the
-clip. You could write an essay about the inconsistencies in the
- arguments
-of the politician you most love to hate, or you could make a short
-film that puts statement against statement. You could write a poem to
-express your love, or you could weave together a string—a mash-up—
-of songs from your favorite artists in a collage and make it available on
-the Net.
-</para>
+In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital
+technologies. These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture
+and share content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what
+humans have done since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and
+communicate. But capturing and sharing through digital technology is
+different. The fidelity and power are different. You could send an
+e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on Comedy Central, or you
+could send the clip. You could write an essay about the
+inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
+hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
+statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could
+weave together a string—a mash-up— of songs from your
+favorite artists in a collage and make it available on the Net.
+</para>
+<indexterm><primary>Kodax</primary></indexterm>
<para>
This digital "capturing and sharing" is in part an extension of the
-capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
-in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
- explodes
-the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
-digital "capturing and sharing" promises a world of extraordinarily
- diverse
-creativity that can be easily and broadly shared. And as that
- creativity
-is applied to democracy, it will enable a broad range of citizens
-to use technology to express and criticize and contribute to the culture
-all around.
+capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture,
+and in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but
+it explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology
+of digital "capturing and sharing" promises a world of extraordinarily
+diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly shared. And as that
+creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a broad range of
+citizens to use technology to express and criticize and contribute to
+the culture all around.
</para>
<para>
Technology has thus given us an opportunity to do something with
culture that has only ever been possible for individuals in small groups,
<!-- PAGE BREAK 194 -->
-isolated from others. Think about an old man telling a story to a
- collection
-of neighbors in a small town. Now imagine that same
- storytelling
-extended across the globe.
+
+isolated from others. Think about an old man telling a story to a
+collection of neighbors in a small town. Now imagine that same
+storytelling extended across the globe.
</para>
<para>
Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In
work is presumptively illegal.
</para>
<para>
-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 and what's not, and at
-the same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.
-The four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of
-chapter 3 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for
-building search engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet
- World-Com—which
-defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to
- investors
-in market capitalization of over $200 billion—received a fine of a
-mere $750 million.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f1. --> See Lynne W. Jeter, Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom
- (Hoboken,
-N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204; for details of the
- settlement,
-see MCI press release, "MCI Wins U.S. District Court Approval for
-SEC Settlement" (7 July 2003), available at
+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
+and what's not, and at the same time, the penalties for crossing the
+line are astonishingly harsh. The four students who were threatened
+by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3 was just one) were threatened
+with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search engines that permitted
+songs to be copied. Yet World-Com—which defrauded investors of
+$11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in market capitalization
+of over $200 billion—received a fine of a mere $750
+million.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f1. -->
+See Lynne W. Jeter, Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at WorldCom
+(Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 176, 204; for details of
+the settlement, see MCI press release, "MCI Wins U.S. District Court
+Approval for SEC Settlement" (7 July 2003), available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #37</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
- 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
+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.<footnote><para>
<!-- f2. --> 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
critical or reflective.
</para>
<para>
-Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the
- changing
-law. I described that change in detail in chapter 10. But an even
-bigger part has to do with the increasing ease with which infractions
-can be tracked. As users of file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it
-is a trivial matter for copyright owners to get courts to order Internet
-service providers to reveal who has what content. It is as if your cassette
-tape player transmitted a list of the songs that you played in the privacy
-of your own home that anyone could tune into for whatever reason
-they chose.
+Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the
+changing law. I described that change in detail in chapter 10. But an
+even bigger part has to do with the increasing ease with which
+infractions can be tracked. As users of file-sharing systems
+discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for copyright owners to get
+courts to order Internet service providers to reveal who has what
+content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a list of
+the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that anyone
+could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
</para>
<para>
Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether
<!-- PAGE BREAK 196 -->
But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to
defend your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system
-for defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad—in practically
-every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
-slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
- underlying
-the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
-For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides
- itself
-on the rule of law.
-</para>
-<para>
-Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides
- adequate
-"breathing room" between regulation by the law and the access
-the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
-system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
-publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose
-upon filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists—
-these are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
-relationship to the "law" with which judges comfort themselves.
-</para>
-<para>
-For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful
- infringement
-of a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to
-even defend against a copyright infringement claim, and which would
-never return to the wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs
-she suffered to defend her right to speak—in that world, the
- astonishingly
-broad regulations that pass under the name "copyright" silence
-speech and creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for
-people to continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
-</para>
-<para>
-As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said
-to me,
+for defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad—in
+practically every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it
+delivers too slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection
+to the justice underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable
+for the very rich. For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a
+tradition that prides itself on the rule of law.
+</para>
+<para>
+Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
+"breathing room" between regulation by the law and the access the law
+should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal system
+has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
+publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors
+impose upon filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon
+journalists— these are the real laws governing creativity. And
+these rules have little relationship to the "law" with which judges
+comfort themselves.
+</para>
+<para>
+For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful
+infringement of a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of
+dollars to even defend against a copyright infringement claim, and
+which would never return to the wrongfully accused defendant anything
+of the costs she suffered to defend her right to speak—in that
+world, the astonishingly broad regulations that pass under the name
+"copyright" silence speech and creativity. And in that world, it takes
+a studied blindness for people to continue to believe they live in a
+culture that is free.
+</para>
+<para>
+As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
-We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative
-people are being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are
-not being expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created,
-it still won't get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made . . . you're
-not going to get it distributed in the mainstream media unless
+We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people
+are being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
+expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still
+won't get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made . . . you're not
+going to get it distributed in the mainstream media unless
<!-- PAGE BREAK 197 -->
you've got a little note from a lawyer saying, "This has been
-cleared." You're not even going to get it on PBS without that kind
-of permission. That's the point at which they control it.
+cleared." You're not even going to get it on PBS without that kind of
+permission. That's the point at which they control it.
</para>
</blockquote>
</sect2>
<sect2 id="innovators">
<title>Constraining Innovators</title>
<para>
-The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story—creativity
-quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't
-get you going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and
-enough expression that is critical of what seems to be just about
- everything.
-And if you think that, you might think there's little in this story
-to worry you.
+The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty
+story—creativity quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada
+yada. Maybe that doesn't get you going. Maybe you think there's enough
+weird art out there, and enough expression that is critical of what
+seems to be just about everything. And if you think that, you might
+think there's little in this story to worry you.
</para>
<para>
-But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.
- Indeed,
-it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme
- promarket
-ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at
-that, 188 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect
-by substituting "free market" every place I've spoken of "free culture."
-The point is the same, even if the interests affecting culture are more
-fundamental.
+But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.
+Indeed, it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme
+promarket ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special
+one at that, 188 pages into a book like this), then you can see this
+other aspect by substituting "free market" every place I've spoken of
+"free culture." The point is the same, even if the interests
+affecting culture are more fundamental.
</para>
<para>
The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the
-same charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone,
-of course, concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary—at a
-minimum, we need rules of property and contract, and courts to
- enforce
-both. Likewise, in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at
-least some framework of copyright is also required. But both
- perspectives
-vehemently insist that just because some regulation is good, it
-doesn't follow that more regulation is better. And both perspectives are
-constantly attuned to the ways in which regulation simply enables the
-powerful industries of today to protect themselves against the
- competitors
-of tomorrow.
+same charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of
+course, concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary—at
+a minimum, we need rules of property and contract, and courts to
+enforce both. Likewise, in this culture debate, everyone concedes that
+at least some framework of copyright is also required. But both
+perspectives vehemently insist that just because some regulation is
+good, it doesn't follow that more regulation is better. And both
+perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which regulation
+simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect themselves
+against the competitors of tomorrow.
</para>
<para>
This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory
<!-- PAGE BREAK 198 -->
strategy that I described in chapter 10. The consequence of this
- massive
-threat of liability tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is
-that innovators who want to innovate in this space can safely innovate
-only if they have the sign-off from last generation's dominant
- industries.
-That lesson has been taught through a series of cases that were
-designed and executed to teach venture capitalists a lesson. That
- lesson—what
-former Napster CEO Hank Barry calls a "nuclear pall" that
-has fallen over the Valley—has been learned.
+massive threat of liability tied to the murky boundaries of copyright
+law is that innovators who want to innovate in this space can safely
+innovate only if they have the sign-off from last generation's
+dominant industries. That lesson has been taught through a series of
+cases that were designed and executed to teach venture capitalists a
+lesson. That lesson—what former Napster CEO Hank Barry calls a
+"nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley—has been learned.
</para>
<para>
Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning
even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
</para>
<para>
-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.
+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.
</para>
<para>
-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 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie
+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
+artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie
Raitt. And so on.
</para>
<para>
-This idea required a simple way to gather data about user
- preferences.
-MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather
-this preference data. In January 2000, the company launched a service
+This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
+MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this
+preference data. In January 2000, the company launched a service
called my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would
-sign into an account and then insert into her computer a CD. The
- software
-would identify the CD, and then give the user access to that
- content.
-So, for example, if you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then
-wherever you were—at work or at home—you could get access to that
-music once you signed into your account. The system was therefore a
-kind of music-lockbox.
+sign into an account and then insert into her computer a CD. The
+software would identify the CD, and then give the user access to that
+content. So, for example, if you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then
+wherever you were—at work or at home—you could get access
+to that music once you signed into your account. The system was
+therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
</para>
<para>
No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But
the kind of content the users liked.
</para>
<para>
-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, and
-would have produced a product of questionable quality.) It therefore
-purchased 50,000 CDs from a store, and started the process of making
-copies of those CDs. Again, it would not serve the content from those
-copies to anyone except those who authenticated that they 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.
+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,
+and would have produced a product of questionable quality.) It
+therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a store, and started the process
+of making copies of those CDs. Again, it would not serve the content
+from those copies to anyone except those who authenticated that they
+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.
</para>
<para>
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
+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
MP3.com to have been guilty of willful infringement with respect to
the fifth. Applying the law as it is, the judge imposed a fine against
MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com then settled with the remaining
-plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over $54 million. Vivendi
- purchased
-MP3.com just about a year later.
+plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over $54 million. Vivendi
+purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
</para>
<para>
That part of the story I have told before. Now consider its conclusion.
</para>
<para>
-After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and
-filed a malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that
-they had a good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would
-be considered legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it
-should have been obvious that the courts would find this behavior
- illegal;
-therefore, this lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared
-to suggest that the law was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
+After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
+malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they
+had a good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be
+considered legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it
+should have been obvious that the courts would find this behavior
+illegal; therefore, this lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had
+dared to suggest that the law was less restrictive than the labels
+demanded.
</para>
<para>
-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 clients in this
+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
+clients in this
<!-- PAGE BREAK 200 -->
space: It is not just your clients who might suffer if the content
- 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.
+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.
</para>
<para>
This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003,
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / commitdiff